ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Oregon”

LGBT

Another Oregon Baker Breaks The Law To Discriminate Against A Same-Sex Couple

By Zack Ford on May 15, 2013 at 11:47 am

Another bakery in Oregon has refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple for their commitment ceremony. Erin Hanson and Katie Pugh reached out to Fleur Cakes for a wedding cake for their celebration near Mt. Hood, but owner Pam Regentin made it quite clear she would not serve them because they are a same-sex couple. KATU News reporter Dan Cassuto reached Regentin by phone to confirm she understood she was clearly violating Oregon’s nondiscrimination law:

CASSUTO: Pam, are you aware that it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation if you have a business that serves the public.

REGENTIN: I believe that I have the liberty to live by my principles.

Watch the news segment:

The story parallels a similar instance of discrimination from earlier this year, when Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to provide a same-sex couple a cake because “marriage is a religious institution ordained by God.” The Oregon Labor Bureau is still processing a complaint filed by that couple.

Both these cases highlight how so-called “religious liberty” actually has nothing to do with marriage equality, because same-sex marriages are not even legally recognized in Oregon. The distinction between whether a business will serve a gay customer and whether a business will serve a gay marrying couple is insignificant, because either way, it’s discrimination based on sexual orientation. A Washington florist tried to make this same distinction, and now faces lawsuits from both the customers she refused service to and the state attorney general.

Health

Obamacare Is Already Forcing Private Insurers To Lower Their Premiums

By Sy Mukherjee on May 10, 2013 at 12:00 pm

President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act into law

Looks like Obamacare is more “on track” than “train wreck.”

In a striking illustration of the promise that the health law holds for consumers, two Oregon private insurers vying to sell coverage on the state’s Obamacare insurance marketplace this October are reevaluating their opening bids for the plans’ monthly premiums. The reason? A side-by-side regional comparison of all proposed 2014 premiums for Oregon marketplace plans became public on Oregon’s marketplace website Thursday, and showed that the two insurers’ planned monthly premiums were far higher than other proposals. That raised fears among the companies’ officials that their plans wouldn’t be competitive on the market later this year, leading them to proactively request a rate reduction — and as more of Obamacare is implemented, state insurance commissioners expect that trend to continue:

“Posting rate comparisons company-by-company is a taste of what is to come,” says Cheryl Martinis of the Oregon Insurance Division.

Judging by the reaction, there’s already an impact.

Providence Health Plan on Wednesday asked to lower its requested rates by 15 percent. Gary Walker, a Providence spokesman, says the “primary driver” was a realization that the plan’s cost projections were incorrect. But he conceded a desire to be competitive was part of it.

A Family Care Health Plans official on Thursday said the insurer will ask the state for even greater decrease in requested rates. CEO Jeff Heatherington says the company realized its analysts were too pessimistic after seeing online that its proposed premiums were the highest.

“That was my question when I saw the rates was, ‘Can we go in and refile these?’” he said. “We’re going to try to get these to a competitive range.”

Although some insurers have been using Obamacare as an excuse to hike premiums despite record profits, such rate hikes have been rarer — and less extreme — since the law’s passage. And to emphasize, this is all happening before the state has had a chance to review and approve initial plan rates — much less launch the actual marketplace. After the exchange opens up, consumers will have even more detailed information about marketplace plans, including the ability to compare — not just rates — but actual benefits offered on the plans side-by-side.

That’s particularly significant because much of the current variation in health plan premiums stems from rampant health care price opacity and wildly divergent benefits offered on different health plans — a status quo that won’t last in the Obamacare era since the law requires qualifying insurance plans to offer a base level of ten “essential health benefits,” including prescription drug, mental health, and maternity services. That means that Americans will be able to go online and figure out whether a plan costs more because it actually provides more robust benefits, or because an insurance company is just trying to gouge prices and maximize profits. Insurance offered on the marketplaces will be separated into Bronze, Silver, and Gold plans based on how generous their offered coverage is, making consumer comparisons between similar health plans simple.

As Thursday’s development shows, that public information empowers consumers by forcing insurers to compete with one another to attract customers. Or to put it another way — and contrary to conservative fear-mongering about the law — Obamacare is working exactly as it was intended to. And with 24 million Americans expected to gain coverage through the marketplaces by 2016, that’s great news for Americans’ pocketbooks — as well as their health.

LGBT

POLL: Plurality In Oregon Would Amend Constitution For Marriage Equality

By Zack Ford on May 2, 2013 at 1:11 pm

In November of 2014, voters in Oregon will have the chance to vote for an amendment to the state constitution that repeals the ban on same-sex marriage and allows for full marriage equality. A new poll from DHM Research shows that 18 months ahead of that vote, a plurality — 49 percent — of Oregon voters support this change, while just 42 percent oppose it. Still, there are 9 percent who are unsure of the change, which means there are still many minds that could change. As John McCarter points out at the Daily Kos, there is reason to be optimistic that so many would actually commit to the amendment, a result that jibes with a Public Policy Polling poll from December that showed 54 percent supporting marriage equality over all.

Related Posts

LGBT

Federal Judge Eviscerates Oregon’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

By Zack Ford on Apr 26, 2013 at 10:12 am

Judge Harry Pregerson and his wife of 64 years, Bernardine.

A federal judge has ruled that an Oregon public defender, Alison Clark, is entitled to health benefits for her same-sex spouse under the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits. Judge Harry Pregerson ruled that the denial of benefits was a violation of the Employment Dispute Resolution Plan’s nondiscrimination protections, arguing that both the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage (Measure 36) are unconstitutional. Clark’s marriage, he concluded, should be recognized under both state and federal law.

Though Pregerson did not specifically rule on Measure 36, he thoroughly debunked three possible objectives behind the law, pointing out that none of them provide any rational basis for banning same-sex couples from marrying:

The first possible objective of Measure 36 is to encourage responsible procreation. Preventing same-sex couples from marrying, however, will have no effect on the procreation of opposite-sex couples in Oregon. Further, same-sex couples can and do procreate — through adoptions, surrogates, and artificial insemination. Denying same-sex couples the status of marriage will not discourage their procreation. Instead, it will lead to children being born out of wedlock to these couples. Thus, excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage is not rationally related to the promotion of responsible procreation.

A second possible objective of Measure 36 is to ensure that children will be raised in stable and enduring families. Even if it is true that children are better off if their parents are married, this objective is not furthered by banning same-sex marriages. First, banning same-sex marriage cannot reasonably be believed to improved the stability of families headed by opposite-sex spouses. Moreover, without same-sex marriages, fewer couples can be married and hence, there are fewer couples who can provide a stable, marital environment for their children.

A third possible objective of Measure 36 is to “proceed with caution” in changing the definition of marriage under Oregon law. If Measure 36 had been a temporary suspension of same-sex marriage that would allow the state legislature or the people of Oregon to consider the issue thoroughly, Measure 36 may have been rationally related to the goal of proceeding with caution. But, as with California’s Proposition 8, “the purpose and effect… was to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry… not to suspend or study that right.” As a permanent and wholesale ban of same-sex marriage, Measure 36 is not rationally related to the goal of proceeding with caution.

An effort is already underway to repeal Measure 36 through a ballot initiative in 2014.

Pregerson ruled that the United States Court must submit Clark’s request to the appropriate health insurance carrier to provide benefits for her wife, and provide the same to any future same-sex couples who apply. If the Office of Personnel Management blocks this, he also ruled that Clark should then be granted monetary relief, including “back pay and associated benefits.”

Pregerson’s ruling does little to change how the Supreme Court may rule on DOMA or California’s Proposition 8 in the coming months, but it is still a symbolic blow to the validity of such discriminatory measures.

Justice

Oregon House Approves Plan To Effectively Abolish The Electoral College

By Ian Millhiser on Apr 20, 2013 at 9:00 am

The second-place finisher in the 2000 presidential election


Three times in American history, the loser of the national popular vote became President of the United States — most recently when George W. Bush entered the White House with an assist from his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, even in elections where the American people ultimately see their choice become president, candidates focus their efforts on just a handful of key swing states — Ohio, Florida, Colorado, etc. — while largely ignoring most of the country. If a plan passed by the Oregon House yesterday becomes sufficiently widespread, however, these practices will end and future presidents will be determined solely according to the will of the voters:

The legislation would require Oregon to cast its seven Electoral College ballots for the candidate who wins the national vote, rather than the one who gets the most votes in Oregon.

It would take effect only if a compact is enacted in states with a majority in the electoral college.

Nine states with 132 electoral votes have enacted it, about half of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

In addition to preventing incidents like the 2000 election, where the loser of the popular vote becomes the winner of the only vote that matters, this National Popular Vote plan would also prevent Republicans from enacting two plans they’ve proposed to rig the Electoral College.

The first such plan, which Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus proposed enacting in “a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red” would rig presidential elections by allocating most electoral votes in several blue states by congressional district, while still awarding 100 percent of red state electors to Republicans. Moreover, because these states are highly gerrymandered to benefit Republicans, it would lead the the absurd result where the Republican candidate would win the majority of the electoral votes in many states even if they lost the popular vote:

The second GOP election rigging plan is currently pending in the Pennsylvania state senate. Under this plan, the blue state of Pennsylvania would allocate its electoral votes proportionally to the popular vote in that state, while red states would once again award 100 percent of their votes to the Republican:

Justice

Oregon May Lead The Way On Automatic Voter Registration

By Scott Keyes on Apr 9, 2013 at 3:00 pm

Oregon may soon begin what is arguably the most innovative, progressive voting effort in the nation: automatic voter registration.

Secretary of State Kate Brown (D) is leading a new effort — the first of its kind in the nation — to make registration as simple as possible in the Beaver State. Currently, voting for nearly every American is a two-step process: one must register to vote before actually voting. Automatically registering voters would streamline the matter, preventing many Oregonians who forgot or were unable to register to still cast a ballot.

Governing has more on how Brown’s idea would work:

Brown’s plan, introduced in the state House last month, would allow Oregon to automatically register new voters at the time they apply for a driver’s license. Those new voters would initially be registered as unaffiliated with any political party. At a later date, they’d receive a postcard by mail allowing them to choose a party affiliation or opt out of voter registration altogether, should they desire. The state’s House Rules Committee held a hearing on the legislation last month, and Brown expects another one in the coming weeks.

In some states, the DMV asks people applying for driver’s licenses if they want to register to vote. If they say yes, they fill out a form on the spot indicating that choice, and they get registered. But the Oregon plan is different. About 500,000 eligible voters who aren’t registered — but are already in the DMV database — would automatically become registered in a process that would begin Jan. 1, 2014. Residents would automatically get registered when they get new driver’s licenses, and their voter registration would be updated when they update or renew those licenses.

Under current Oregon law, residents must register (or update their registration) at least 25 days before the election or be shut out of the political process. Deadlines like these and other associated hurdles can prevent many people from registering to vote. There are currently more than 600,000 Oregonians who are eligible to vote but have not registered.

Though voting rights advocates like the League of Women Voters of Oregon laud Brown’s idea, Republicans are skeptical that it should be easier to vote. Oregon Republican Party executive director Greg Leo said that making registration easier would lead to a less-informed electorate. “We make it so easy for people to participate that I worry they won’t take the time to be an informed voter and to really study the issues,” Leo said.

Oregon has a history of innovation on voting rights. In 1998, it became the first state to move to a vote-by-mail system; the state of Washington has since followed their lead.

LGBT

Same-Sex Marriage Opponents Fail To Distort Oregon Ballot Initiative Language

By Zack Ford on Apr 8, 2013 at 9:03 am

Advocates in Oregon are working to amend the state’s constitution to allow same-sex marriage through a ballot initiative in 2014. Opponents are already trying to disrupt this process by challenging the language for the proposed initiative. The Oregon Family Council argued that the proposal would require every governmental agency in Oregon to issue marriage licenses instead of just county clerks, and thus that should be reflected in the title.

The attorney general’s office rejected this argument, pointing out that even if the measure could be interpreted to require such a change, it’s certainly not the purpose of the initiative. Though Basic Rights Oregon is still considering two possible versions for the initiative, the title for either will read:

Amends Constitution: Recognizes marriage between couples of same gender; protects clergy/religious institutions’ refusal to perform marriages.

The title can still be appealed to the state Supreme Court, so the legal wrangling may not be over yet. At any rate, it’s the first of what could be many victories for Oregon’s champions of equality.

Justice

Oregon Sheriff Says He’s Forced To Release Burglars To Jail Undocumented Immigrants

By Rebecca Leber on Apr 2, 2013 at 10:30 am

An Oregon county’s commitment to detain undocumented immigrants at the federal government’s request has left little room in its overcrowded jail cells for people involved in more serious offenses. In the last month, Sheriff Dan Stanton said his jails have released individuals involved in the unlawful use of a weapon, assault, robbery, and a car chase in order to jail immigrants for 48 hours so that Immigration and Customs Enforcement can investigate their status.

However, Stanton says the county can no longer afford to release criminals in order to hold alleged undocumented immigrants (his new policy would exclude anyone accused of felonies and misdemeanor violent crimes). According to KATU News, Stanton argued the current system puts “undue burden on the county:”

“I’m releasing people who are committing burglaries. I’m releasing people that are stealing vehicles. I keep releasing people that are low level drug offenders and I’ve got to put a stop to it.“

According to Detention Watch Network, 67 percent of the 33,330 immigrants detained in 2011 were held in hundreds of county and city prisons.

A handful of cities, including New York City and Los Angeles, already limit their cooperation with federal immigration officials on requests to detain immigrants with no serious criminal offense. Budget cuts appear to be forcing many to rethink immigrant detentions, considering their staggering cost at $119 per person per day.

Economy

Portland, Oregon Becomes Fourth American City To Adopt Paid Sick Day Law

By Jane Farrell, Guest Blogger on Mar 13, 2013 at 6:30 pm

Our guest blogger is Jane Farrell, a Research Assistant for economic policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Portland became the fourth American city to approve a paid sick days law Wednesday, an important step forward today that will help the city’s workers, employers, and residents. Portland joined three other cities – San Francisco, Washington DC, and Seattle – and one state, Connecticut, in modernizing its workplace policies and acknowledging an important reality: everybody gets sick but no one should be at risk of losing a job, infecting coworkers or customers, or missing a day’s pay because of an illness.

While the economic and social benefits of paid sick days are numerous, Portland City Councilmembers nevertheless weighed the evidence in favor of and against paid sick leave carefully. Ultimately, they unanimously decided that this policy would help make Portland a stronger city and community. Worker-friendly policies like paid sick leave help reduce turnover, saving businesses time and money they might have spent on training, hiring, and replacing employees. It also strengthens worker loyalty and increases worker productivity.

Paid sick leave also helps lower health care costs by reducing the number of costly emergency room visits Portland hospitals will have to finance or subsidize. While 40 percent of private sector workers across the US lack even one paid sick day, Portland residents who previously lacked this protection can now rest easy – and work even more diligently – knowing they are safe and covered.

Justice

Armed Pro-Gun Protesters Occupy Oregon State Capitol

By Ian Millhiser on Feb 11, 2013 at 10:30 am

A few hundred pro-gun demonstrators rallied outside the Oregon state Capitol on Friday to protest efforts to enact gun safety laws. A handful of protesters also entered the Capitol building itself and brandished assault rifles and other guns in the Capitol rotunda:

The Oregonian has more pictures of the armed protesters here. Oregon law permits persons with concealed carry permits to openly carry weapons within public buildings, so the armed demonstrators behaved lawfully provided they had valid permits while standing inside the Capitol.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up