Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon
Emergency Messages as of 3:59 am, Wed. Aug. 15
No information currently posted. Operating as usual.
News Releases
Planned Parenthood PAC of Oregon: Buehler Video Insults All Oregon Women - 08/10/18

Yesterday Knute Buehler posted a campaign video that misrepresents his anti-abortion voting record and that contains an outrageous allegation against Governor Kate Brown, with one supporter claiming, “Knute cares more about women than Kate Brown does — and she’s a woman.” The video, titled “Women’s Health,” fails to disclose that the “Independent” voter is a former employee for Buehler.

Planned Parenthood PAC of Oregon strongly condemns the video as misleading and irresponsible for covering up Buehler’s record of voting against expanding access to reproductive health care; protecting a woman’s right to safe, legal abortion; and expanding healthcare access for low-income families.

Emily McLain, Executive Director of Planned Parenthood PAC of Oregon, said: “There is only one gubernatorial candidate who has a long history of fighting for women and kids, and it’s not Knute Buehler. Governor Brown started her career serving women and families and hasn’t stopped since. Meanwhile, Buehler has voted against protecting Roe vs. Wade. He has promised to restrict access to safe, legal abortion, calling it ‘the wrong option.’ He has sided with anti-abortion extremists, while attacking Planned Parenthood for ‘not doing the right thing for women’s health.’

“Buehler’s outrageous attack on Governor Brown is an insult to all Oregon women. Based on his words and actions, we can’t trust Buehler to stand up for women’s health and rights. We urge voters to go to to learn the facts.”

Oregonians deserve to know the truth. Here are 10 questions that Knute Buehler still hasn’t answered:

  1. Why did he vote against codifying Roe v. Wade into Oregon law?
  2. Why has he been silent about Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee who is committed to overturning Roe v. Wade?
  3. Why did he say abortion is “the wrong option” if he’s indeed “pro-choice”?
  4. Why did he promise to restrict abortion, while claiming he “doesn't see access to abortion under threat”?
  5. Why did he seek the recommendation of Oregon Right to Life, a radical organization that wants to ban all abortion and the most popular forms of birth control?
  6. Why does he oppose state funding for low-income women to access to safe, legal abortion through their insurance plan?
  7. Why has he refused to defend the Planned Parenthood health center that serves his own constituents, in the face of relentless attacks at the federal level from his own political party?
  8. Why did he brag on right-wing radio about his “record in the Legislature of voting against Governor Brown’s efforts to expand access to abortion”?
  9. Why does he continue to misrepresent the existence of “over the counter” birth control in Oregon?
  10. Why did he vote against the Oregon Health Plan, which covers reproductive health services for thousands of women throughout the state?

Planned Parenthood PAC of Oregon has endorsed Governor Kate Brown for re-election because she has provided clear answers to these questions in her endorsement interviews and in her longtime voting record and leadership. Voters should visit for more information about why Buehler cannot be trusted to protect women’s health and rights.

No Cuts to Care urges Oregon Secretary of State to drop unprecedented signature observation restriction - 07/24/18

SALEM — Yesterday, the Oregon Secretary of State’s office imposed highly unusual restrictions on signature verification observation for Initiative Petition 1, placing tape on the ground multiple feet away from the verification process so that it is impossible for staff and volunteers to effectively monitor the process. This new and unprecedented limitation appears to be a direct response to disruptive behavior in the signature verification room from just one person: Jeff Jimerson, IP 1 chief petitioner.

Elections Director Steve Trout has not responded to multiple calls about this issue, so today the No Cuts to Care campaign is publicly calling on the office to allow signature verification observers unobstructed access to the signature verification process.

“Punishing Oregonians who have fully complied with the rules set forth by the Secretary of State simply because Mr. Jimerson apparently could not behave himself is not only unfair, it undermines confidence in the office’s essential work verifying initiative petitions,” said Emily McLain, Executive Director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon (PPAO).

“Serious allegations of illegal signature gathering activity have dogged IP 1,” said Grayson Dempsey, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon. “Restricting the ability of our staff and volunteers to respectfully observe the verification process serves only to raise further doubt about the integrity of the signatures collected for IP 1.”

Mounting evidence has shown that Oregon Life United, Stop the Funding (the groups behind the anti-choice initiative) and their hired staff were engaging in paid circulation without having registered with the state as paid circulators. In mid-May, the leaders of ACLU of Oregon, NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon filed a complaint with the Secretary of State, alleging that Oregon Life United and Stop the Funding had failed to report campaign finance contributions and asking the office to investigate whether 19 individuals who received payments from Oregon Life United were in fact paid petitioners who had not registered with the Secretary of State.

Jimerson, the director of Oregon Life United, admitted that at least two paid staff who were coordinating signature gathering and collecting signatures had not registered with the Secretary of State, among other campaign finance "oversights." In a follow-up complaint, PPAO has asked the Secretary of State to follow up on this new information, and reject all improperly collected signatures for IP 1.

Initiative Petition 1 would amend the Oregon Constitution to restrict access to safe, legal abortion for any woman who receives her health care through the state, including an estimated 250,000 low-income women and 75,000 teachers, firefighters and other public employees. It would reduce access to health care, particularly for the most vulnerable people who already face significant barriers to receiving high-quality care, and it would set a dangerous precedent by cherry-picking which medical procedures insurance will and won’t cover.