Rep. James Hieb answers questions about abortion rights, bipartisan compromise, more

Published 1:00 pm Thursday, May 9, 2024

The primary for the 2024 election season is almost upon us. As May 21 draws ever closer, The Post reached out to House District 51 candidates – Rep. James Hieb (R-Canby) and former Rep. Christine Drazan (R-Canby) to talk about their priorities, stances on issues facing the district and the state and what they feel they’ve accomplished in their time in the House previously that makes them the most qualified to serve again.

House District 51 is comprised of much of Clackamas County, including Canby, Eagle Creek, Estacada and Sandy proper.

Drazan served as representative for House District 51 from 2019-2022, before the state was redistricted, and then sought the gubernatorial seat in 2022. Now she returns, hoping to once again serve the district she’s a longtime resident of. Drazan declined the opportunity to participate in the Post’s candidate Q&A.

Hieb was appointed to replace then House Minority leader Drazan in District 39 when she left the legislature for her gubernatorial run in 2022. Hieb ran and won the seat against Sandy Democratic candidate Walt Trandum in November 2022.

Hieb formerly served in the Marine Corps infantry, and he is currently vice-chair of the Canby Planning Commission and the director of the Building Blocks Early Learning Center in Wilsonville.

What follows is part three of three of a candidate Q&A between Hieb and The Sandy Post.

THE SANDY POST: What do you think is required for Democrats and Republicans to find compromise in the Legislature?

REP. JAMES HIEB: As a Republican, I have learned that being in the minority means that I don’t get to be in control of setting the agenda. But what I can do is take a seat at the table and communicate the perspectives of my constituents to make sure the majority party is at least aware of our concerns and advocate for those issues. I always want the majority party to understand my reasoning behind those views, so I focus on staying in communication with my colleagues in the most kind and respectful ways possible. I have often been the only Republican to participate in meetings or events, such as those in the Greater Portland Metro Area. I am also often the only Republican Co-Chief Sponsor on what has been labeled as “Bipartisan Bills,” such as the Opioid Omnibus Bill (HB 2395), the funding of a new Traumatic Brain Injury Resource Center (SB 420), and my recent OLCC Bill (HB 4138) that was passed these last two sessions and signed into effect by Governor Kotek.

POST: Do you support HB4002 and why or why not?

HIEB: Yes, and I supported and voted for both versions of the bills to repeal Measure 110 and recriminalize hard drugs in Oregon. The Democrats passed their version (HB 4002), which was not as strict as the Republican’s version (HB 4316), but either way I believe it is the first step towards combating the addiction crisis in Oregon.

Two of my younger brothers died from fentanyl overdoses in 2014, then my dad committed suicide shortly thereafter. I’ve told my family story so many times that I have become numb to my own pain.

Although the final version of HB 4002 is not perfect, it is much better than I expected. I believe that this Bill will help addicts and will help save lives. We also need to help save so many families from the pain associated with the loss of their loved ones. I believe this Bill is a step in the right direction.

The benefit of this Bill is that it puts the power back into a judge’s hands and gives them the flexibility to choose whether someone needs punitive actions to address the criminal issues that occurred or develop a plan for if they need treatment or other help to overcome their addiction.

Another benefit is that it allocates resources to treatment facilities, which we need throughout the state. In Clackamas County, I was able to help secure the funding for several of these projects, including: $700,000 to 4D Recovery for a new Young Adult Recovery Center / Supportive Housing Development; $720,000 for Free on the Outside’s Clackamas County men’s transitional home; $1.56 million for Bridges to Change Scattered Housing, which supports people on their path to recovery through peer delivered services and stable housing; and $4 million for the Clackamas County Crisis Stabilization Center, which is a behavioral health and mental health walk-in center. I am proud to have shifted significant amounts of resources away from Portland and bring our tax dollars back to the district in order to support our community needs right here in Clackamas County.

The problem is that this Bill doesn’t go far enough regarding parental rights when it comes to having children in treatment. Right now, a 15-year-old minor on drugs can check themselves out of rehab without parental notification or consent, and this should not be allowed for those younger folks who are incapacitated and need help.

This Bill also doesn’t go far enough regarding civil committal when it comes to a police officer responding to a dangerous situation, they are unable to take the person to a mental health facility when it is caused by drug induced psychosis. If it were for just mental health, then they could but not when it is caused by drugs. So when you look at these folks who are suffering on drugs, what more can our law enforcement officers actually do to help them?

Even if they are able to take them somewhere, 24 hours is the maximum hold time allowed, but it should be longer, as it takes a minimum of 72 hours for drugs to leave their body.

There are people literally dying in our streets and Measure 110 must be fully repealed for the issue to begin to be fully addressed.

POST: What is your stance on tolling and why? If opposed, what alternative do you see for funding what these tolls are proposed to fund?

HIEB: I do not support tolling, especially when the traffic would be diverted through Hwy 99 in our district. We already have a funding stream for our transportation infrastructure that would work effectively, if it were merely updated. The fuel tax in Oregon is supposed to cover the costs associated with maintaining our roads, but not all of the fuels are being taxed, as they should be. With the increasing popularity of Electric vehicles, LNG and Hydrogen fuel vehicles, and the advent of future technologies, those drivers must also contribute their fair share as we currently have inequitable application of the law.

POST: Do you support a woman’s right to choose? Or are you in favor of revising Oregon’s policy on abortions. Abortion is legal throughout pregnancy in Oregon – there is no ban or limit on abortion in Oregon based on how far along in pregnancy you are. There is no law that specifically requires you to notify or get consent from a parent to get an abortion in Oregon.

 Currently, Oregon has zero restrictions on the practice of abortion. A girl as young as 15 can end the life of her child at any stage in her pregnancy — a permanent, life-altering decision — without parental knowledge or consent. That means a fully formed, perfectly healthy infant at 40 weeks of gestation does not have a right to life in the state of Oregon — if they happen to still be in the womb.

Even residents from other states can travel to Oregon to have the procedure done, no questions asked — and Democrats approved allocating $15 million in taxpayer state funds last year to pay for abortion fees to cover travel and lodging for these so-called “abortion tourists.”

The end result of all this, not surprisingly, is to turn our state into an abortion free-for-all, with our tax dollars footing the bill. This is simply madness, and it needs to stop.

This is not an extreme view. Polling has repeatedly shown that the majority of Oregonians do NOT support the extreme, anything-goes approach to abortion that activists and pro-abortion Democrats have foisted upon us here in Oregon.

In 2022, a survey from the independent, respected firm of DHM Research found that while 65% of Oregonians identify as pro-choice, 58% say abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy should be illegal except to save the mother’s life, including 48% of Democrats and 59% of women. (Source: https://www.dhmresearch.com/oregonians-are-pro-choice…/)

And a 2020 poll by Ragnar Research Partners found that 78% of Oregonians supported the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill that would have required medical care to be given to a baby that survives a failed abortion procedure — which abortion extremists defeated in the state Senate the following year. (Source: https://www.ortl.org/…/ORTL_OR-STW_Benchmark_Memo_v2.0…)

Contrary to the insistence of liberal feminist extremists, most Oregonians support limits on abortion. I agree with most Oregonians. I think the great nonviolent resistance leader Mahatma Gandhi said it best: “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”

Unrestricted abortion harms children, families, our society and, yes, women, people of color and other vulnerable groups. We can do better for women and mothers in our state — while protecting the sacred right to life of unborn babies who are fully viable and capable of living outside the womb.

As there are currently zero restrictions on abortions in Oregon, which can be performed at any age without any parental notification, I believe there should be common sense regulations, especially when our tax dollars are covering the costs. Personally, I am openly and vocally a Pro-Life Conservative and am endorsed by the Oregon Right to Life.

Last session, I sponsored four bills that would encourage mothers to consider alternative options for their viable children that are early-term (after the 37th week of gestation), full-term (39th week), post-term (40th week), or late-term (third trimester).

All of these proposals have reasonable exceptions for rape, incest, medical emergency, or to preserve the life of the mother. They are attached to this post for you to read.

• HB 2810 — Prohibits abortion in Oregon after the 37th week of gestation with exceptions for rape, incest, or to preserve the life of the mother
• HB 2808 — Prohibits abortion in Oregon after the 38th week of gestation with exceptions for rape, incest, or to preserve the life of the mother
• HB 2807 — Prohibits abortion in Oregon after the 39th week of gestation with exceptions for rape, incest, or to preserve the life of the mother
• HB 2809 — Prohibits late-term abortions in Oregon except in medical emergency or to terminate pregnancy resulting from rape or incest

More than a dozen bills related to restricting or expanding access to this procedure have already been introduced into the Oregon House and Senate, including several I have chief sponsored and co-sponsored to protect the voiceless children in the womb.

Where are we going to draw the line in a society? A perfectly healthy, fully formed fetus can be killed at 39.5 weeks and I believe this is Infanticide. Are we going to also allow post-birth abortions? Where are we going to draw the line, as a society?

I was the first Legislator and only House Representative to walk out on HB 2002, the video in which I explained my constitutional reasoning can be found on my website or social media. I feel this act was stronger than another minority party “Nay” vote. When re-elected I will work to repeal this Bill, which also included the maltreatment of gender dysphoria in transgender minors, permanently scarring these youth, all predicated on deadly junk science that has now been restricted throughout Europe and several US states.

POST: Voters in 12 rural counties in Oregon will vote in November on whether to join neighboring Idaho. Changing the state boundaries of Oregon and Idaho would require approval from the U.S. Congress and state legislatures of Oregon and Idaho, per the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, and Article IV, Section 3. Assuming these counties vote to secede, what is your vote, and why, if elected to the Oregon Legislature.

HIEB: The larger underlying issue here is the fact that almost half of the people living in the State of Oregon feel that they are not being represented by their elected officials. If the people living in those rural counties felt like they had adequate representation at the legislature or in Congress, then they wouldn’t feel like they would need to leave this state. Those 12 counties encompass more than half of the geographic region of the state and if they do choose to leave and form a Greater Idaho, we would all be worse off. I personally don’t want to see our state fractured and split into multiple pieces like that. We must become more inclusive of the rural, conservative voices in our society and prevent segregation of the population due to lack of representation.