Newspapers all over Oregon are urging voters to vote NO on Measure 106

TL;DR: 15 newspapers across the state are urging Oregonians to vote NO on Measure 106.

The Oregonian said:

“For more than 30 years, Oregonians have supported abortion as one of the many medical procedures offered within basic health care…Voters here have swatted down six past attempts to alter abortion access, making it clear they believe this a personal medical decision that Oregonians can be trusted to make. This initiative, too, should be rejected.”

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on September 30, 2018, here: “Editorial endorsement: No on 106. Trust Oregonians to choose their health care.

 

The Medford Mail Tribune said:

“The architect of the measure, Jeff Jimerson of Corvallis, told Oregon Public Broadcasting that he believes public funding means more abortions. “When you offer something free to somebody, people will take something even when it’s not the best option for them,” he said.

Nonsense.

The idea that women will choose to have an abortion they otherwise wouldn’t have simply because it’s free is insulting and disrespectful. It’s not the state’s business to make that decision for anyone

We recommend a no vote.”

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 3, 2018, here: “Measure 106: It’s about fairness.

 

The Bend Bulletin said:

Oregonians have a long and proud history of protecting all women’s right to an abortion, and now they’re being asked to protect that right specifically for the poorest Oregonians. They can, and should, do so by rejecting Ballot Measure 106…Oregonians should be wary of any proposal that would put the state on the path to a two-tiered health system, one for the poor and public employees with limits based on political or religious belief, and another, broader one for the rest of us.”

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 16, 2018, here: “Editorial: Vote no on Measure 106.”

 

The Register Guard said:

“Measure 106, which would forbid using state dollars to pay for abortions, doesn’t even have an interesting argument to make. It’s a backdoor ban on abortion, plain and simple. Oregonians should rebuke it not just as a matter of principle but also to send a message that Oregon isn’t interested in going backward on women’s right to make their own health care choices.

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 14, 2018, here: “Vote no on divisive immigration and abortion measures.”

 

The Corvallis Gazette Times said:

And the downside of Measure 106 is deep: It would create a disproportionate financial hardship for low-income women and would limit their access to a medical procedure…It also would interfere with decisions that should not be the province of the state: The deeply personal decision to abort a pregnancy is a matter for the women involved, their loved ones and their medical providers, and no one else…Oregon voters should, once again, make it clear that the state has no business interfering with these personal medical decisions. We recommend a “No” vote on Measure 106.”

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 11, 2018, here: “Editorial: Voters should reject abortion Measure 106.

 

The East Oregonian said:

“But this measure fails to take into consideration all the possible side effects of such a ban, including its unequal impact on women living in poverty and public employees, who both rely on public health plans.”

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 9, 2018, here: “Our view | Half-measures and full consequences.”

 

The Willamette Week said:

Proponents of this measure claim it would not restrict any woman’s right to choose an abortion. That claim is false…Abortion is already safe, legal and rare in Oregon. It’s also accessible to women of all income levels and circumstances. We should keep it that way.”

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 17, 2018, here: “WW’s November 2018 Endorsements for Oregon Ballot Measures.

 

Street Roots said:

This measure is aimed at chipping away at women’s reproductive rights in Oregon, and it won’t be the last. Backers of this measure have simply taken aim at the lowest hanging fruit – some of the most vulnerable women in Oregon whose health care is funded through Medicaid (Oregon Health Plan) and women with state-funded health plans…As women in states across the country face increasingly limited access to reproductive health care and a new Supreme Court contingency threatens Roe v. Wade, it’s crucial Oregon stay its course and continue to unapologetically preserve women’s full constitutional rights. Vote no.”

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 19, 2018, here: “Street Roots’ 2018 endorsements: Ballot measures.”

 

The Bend Source Weekly said:

Oregon’s most vulnerable and low-income people should, like everyone else, get to decide when they have a child—and they should not be discriminated against due to the fact that they’re receiving coverage from the Oregon Health Plan. As the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court changes and the threat of a reversal of Roe v. Wade becomes more of a reality, Oregonians can and should be able to take comfort in the fact that our state’s laws will protect women’s right to choose. This Measure sets a dangerous precedent. Vote No on Measure 106.”

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 17, 2018, here: “Measure 106: Vote No.”

 

The Portland Mercury said:

Proponents argue that pulling public funding isn’t the same as a formal ban on abortion. But forcing low-income Oregon women to pay out of pocket for an abortion—ranging anywhere from $300 to $3,000—is simply a sneakier, crueler way to keep the legal option out of reach.

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 23, 2018, here: “A Mercury Voter Guide for the November 2018 Election.”

 

The Eugene Weekly said:

“EW believes that everyone should have the right to make their own choices in regards to their bodies. That’s why we say vote “no” on Measure 106.”

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 18, 2018, here: “Endorsements: Statewide Measures.”

 

The Ashland Daily Tidings said:

Ballot Measure 106 is the third attempt in Oregon to forbid the use of public money to pay for abortions. The first two failed; this one should suffer a similar fate.

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 4, 2018, here: “It’s about fairness.”

 

The Salem Weekly said:

“Yet another Trumpian measure that would deny reproductive rights to thousands of low-income women and would also take away coverage for public employees as part of their benefits plans.

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 12, 2018, here: “CATCH THE WAVE -Salem Weekly 2018 ENDORSEMENTS.”

 

The Daily Astorian said:

“But this measure fails to take into consideration all the possible side effects of such a ban, including its unequal impact on women living in poverty and public employees, who both rely on public health plans.”

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 11, 2018, here: “Our view | Half-measures and full consequences.”

 

The Skanner said:

“Vote No.”

Read their full NO endorsement, first published on October 12, 2018, here: “The Skanner News Endorsements for Statewide Elections 2018.”

News From the Campaign:

Why I Oppose Measure 106: The Power of Safe & Accessible Abortion

The following personal story has been taken from the Voter Pamphlet Statements in opposition to Measure 106. I have been lucky a few times in my life. I was lucky at 17, when I arrived at college. Getting to college was about creating a future free of everything that had been wrong about my childhood. … Continued

An Open Letter from Over 100 Oregon Clinicians

As Oregon clinicians, we are writing to oppose Measure 106, which is nothing more than a backdoor ban on abortion. As providers, we believe that all women – regardless of how much money they make or how they are insured – should be able to make their own medical decisions in consultation with their healthcare … Continued

Community: