Posted on 02/01/2024 11:52:08 PM PST by Morgana
Last year, Oregon Senate Republicans undertook a historic walk-out to stop two radical pro-abortion bills, including one that would have stripped parents of their right to be involved in their children’s abortion decisions.
Republican lawmakers blocked the Democrat-controlled Senate from passing legislation because of House Bill 2002, a radical pro-abortion bill that would allow girls as young as 10 to have abortions – or be coerced by an abuser – without their parents’ knowledge.
Republican and independent lawmakers denied a quorum in the Oregon Senate and blocked action on the pro-abortion bill and other legislation. Senate rules require two thirds of lawmakers to be present to vote on legislation.
Republicans eventually reached a decision to support the bill after changes were made to it. The agreement also stopped a second bill which would have amended the state constitution to create a “right” to unrestricted abortion on demand.
But today, a court has ruled lockout participants can’t run for re-election.
A new state constitutional amendment imposes financial penalties on lawmakers for walking out and denying a quorum. It also prohibits lawmakers from running for re-election if they have at least 10 unexcused absences.
The lawmakers challenged this, to no avail. Today, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that 10 Republican state senators are ineligible to run for reelection after they participated in the walkout.
The high court decided in favor of Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade, who had disqualified the senators from running for office again after voters approved a measure in 2022 to amend the state constitution to ban lawmakers with more than 10 unexcused absences from running again.
Five of the 10 Republican state senators, Tim Knopp, Daniel Bonham, Suzanne Weber, Dennis Linthicum and Lynn Findley, had filed a lawsuit against the secretary of state over the decision.
Lois Anderson, Executive Director of Oregon Right to Life, expressed her deep disappointment with the court ruling, stating, “I am saddened by the court’s decision. These senators were elected by their constituents to faithfully serve their districts and protect the rights and lives of their constituents. They fulfilled their duty with unwavering dedication.”
Due to the court’s ruling, ten senators will be disqualified from running in upcoming elections, with six affected in 2024 and four in 2026. Anderson states, “I applaud the tireless commitment and sacrifices made by these senators. Their unwavering dedication to serving both their constituents, born and unborn, will forever be remembered.”
Previously, the state’s leading pro-life group praised the legislators.
“Because pro-life senators walked out, courageously putting their political careers on the line, HB 2002 was reined in,” Oregon Right to Life executive director Lois Anderson responded this week. “Though the amendments do not resolve all our concerns, the changes to HB 2002 retain protections for parents and children, born and unborn, that would have been removed.”
Anderson said the compromise eliminated significant provisions in House Bill 2002, including the withholding of information from parents about their young daughters’ abortions and the repeal of the crime of “concealing the death of an infant.”
Oregon has very few restrictions on abortion, and its governor has been working with leaders in Washington and California to expand elective abortions even more, including by devoting millions of taxpayer dollars to destroying unborn babies’ lives. Last year, the state legislature approved $15 million to pay for women in and out of state to travel for abortions and increase the number of abortion facilities in the state.
Rules for me but not for thee. That is our courts. Storm and interrupt Supreme Court or other legislative action - first amendment but any other action is insurrection.
Burn/storm the whitehouse is just first amendment BLM, but ….
Our two tiered court system will be a major issue down the road. Or not.
Hmmmm....there are a BUNCH of Democrats in Texas who did exactly the same thing. I wonder if the set precedent would apply in Texas.
With a state constitutional amendment like Oregon, sure. Maybe same in DC?
Reporting is so terrible these days. Most of the article says they can’t run for re-election because they walked out (a new law). But the court said it was because of the older law about having more than 10 unexcused absences.
So which was it? Did they have more than 10 unexcused absences, or because they staged a walk-out? Or perhaps the walk-out was their 11th absence.
Due to the State Constitution allowing citizen initiative and referendum, an organization related to women’s health is circulating petitions in the State of SD to have on the next general election ballot, unrestricted abortion, as an amendment to the State Constitution. Thus cementing in law the “right” to kill your offspring right up to birth and maybe even after.
My only utterance should this pass would be “Good God Almighty”. “We the People” have to share in this blood lust that cannot lead anywhere but our destruction by a righteous God.
No, rats 🐀 are allowed to do it. Not our side.
Nobody pursued expelling those Democrats and they were welcomed back.
-PJ
It sounds like the courts ruled to remove the Republicans because they walked out BEFORE there was a rule against walking out. I can’t remember what that’s called but it’s illegal.
An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.
Oregon passed a state constitutional amendment in 2022 prohibiting more than ten unexcused absences from legislative sessions. These Senators knowingly violated the new law.
Seems pretty stupid to flagrantly do that.
I wonder if any other states have such an article in their constitutions.
I agree with him Dems are the threat to Democracy, or really this REPUBLIC.
So, the solution is to shoot the judge. He forfeited being by making the ruling
Ex Post Facto Law unconstitutional..........................
I could be wrong, but I think the law was already in place when the legislators did their walkout.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3:
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
Seems pretty clear.
“An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.”
Thank you. IIRC, they did the same thing to Trump when the NYS legislature passed a law changing the statute of limitations for rape allegations so they could charge him for the Jean Carroll case.
The Dems pushed through a petition and ballot measure to make it a law to lose your job if you walk out more than 10 days.
The eastern half of the State really needs to become part of Western Idaho. They have nothing in common with the woketard bolsheviks who inhabit the Portland - Eugene corridor. This is just more validation that the state lines need to be re-drawn.
CAN THEY RUN FOR DIFFERENT POSITIONS???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.