Publication Date
8-12-2014
Document Type
Report
Persistent Identifier
https://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/41297
Recommended Citation
City Club of Portland (Portland, Or.), "A City Club Report on IP6: Public Funds for Abortion" (2014). City Club of Portland. 599.
https://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/41297
Included in
Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Urban Studies and Planning Commons
Notes
Published in the City Club of Portland Bulletin, Vol. 97, No. 3, August 12, 2014
In the Spring of 2014, petitioners began collecting signatures to place Initiative Petition 6 (IP 6) on the November 2014 Ballot, which would have amended the Oregon Constitution to ban the use of public funds to pay for abortion, insurance covering abortion, and related services, with limited exceptions.
As of July, 2014 petitioners had failed to qualify for the ballot. In the interim your committee completed its review of IP 6, and submits the following report, with the hope that our work can inform City Club of Portland, as well as local, state and national communities, on future questions related to this issue.
Proponents of IP 6 argue that abortion is morally wrong and Oregon taxpayers should not be required to see their taxes spent on activities they believe destroy human life. Proponents argue that IP 6 provides sufficient exceptions such that certain necessary abortion services may still be provided using public funding. Proponents also argue that IP 6 would not ban or otherwise restrict services, only the use of public funds for those services.
Opponents of IP 6 argue that the ban will severely limit access to abortion in Oregon, with a disproportionate effect on the ability of lower-income women and families, and in particular women of color, to receive abortion services. This effect is likely to create delays in receiving services. Opponents also argue that the ability of public employees to receive abortion services should not be limited because they work for the state or other public entities instead of private industry. Further, the exceptions to the ban are insufficient and contain ambiguous and ill-defined language.
Your committee has determined that passage of IP 6 would have a disproportionate effect on lower-income women and families, and generate delays in seeking abortion services, which could lead to medical complications. Several terms used in IP 6 are poorly defined, which could lead to litigation. Finally, Oregon voters have repeatedly supported equal access to abortion for everyone. Your Committee believes passage of IP 6 would be injurious to equal abortion access.
Recommendation: Your committee unanimously recommends a no vote.