[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6097407,"mediaKeyId","2828214-5a9993b37a5415f302eb26d6f2e26cf1","parentId",2828214,"title","Senate committee hears broad support for SB 163 to modernize Oregon parentage law","audioSeconds",2563,"startMs",95000,"endMs",2658000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2828214-5a9993b37a5415f302eb26d6f2e26cf1&start=95&end=2658","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2828214-5a9993b37a5415f302eb26d6f2e26cf1/thumbnail_95000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6097407/Oregon/Senate-committee-hears-broad-support-for-SB-163-to-modernize-Oregon-parentage-law","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6097407-3c54580478c6cc0689c1506f7dd74446/orig.mp4?Expires=1773578096&Signature=ZMM5Zq2F06OsP-WmBK~sgSiY14sl8nuVjGQjGfva45IfiC07NDkrc05ZVb6nvLS7FDCAgfKWI9S2SYU04Nh3RwfVER-ThML4iPTIanvojyxnJ-AVPBfmxAWPC9FZZjklvwhf8epHj4U7NkOQgF98k09chxtE0RFbhsiKQzwHl1kvHmYQBwzZh3pU98oIP3c83C-AEYh~LUNcN~oxZmao54otSi7d-SBB1QY5aaNBQcJzRn7kciE7IO4b294RTWLmEVTmtdjCwKzUNoiqC9SagsSiB6I6MxBxyEYOXpZK71jbbqoZ8F778BKo1CYMLYPQyDt~52uHAMmuSv99WJ2dfg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon State Legislature","date","2025-03-31T15:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 163, a package of changes to Oregon’s parentage statutes, drew extended testimony March 31 before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, with backers saying the bill modernizes how courts establish parentage in cases involving assisted reproduction, surrogacy and gamete donation.

The bill “incorporates provisions from the Uniform Parentage Act and revises existing statutes,” Abby (legislative staff) told the committee, and Lane Shetterly, Oregon commissioner to the Uniform Law Commission, described the measure as a mix of UPA text and Oregon-specific adaptations designed to address assisted reproduction and surrogacy.

Supporters said the bill would expand who can start parentage proceedings, create clearer procedures for genetic testing and adjudication, and set up a donor registry that gives donor-conceived adults access to identifying and medical donor information when they turn 18. Lane Shetterly, testifying for the Uniform Law Commission, said the bill is informed by a multi‑year, multi‑stakeholder work group and that the proposal is not a wholesale adoption of the UPA but draws heavily from it.

“Parentage is all about the establishment and recognition of the legal relationship between a child and his or her parents,” Shetterly said. He described provisions including updated presumptions of parentage, expanded voluntary acknowledgments for intended non‑genetic parents, a strengthened framework for genetic testing in adjudications, and statutory treatment for gestational surrogacy agreements.

Attorney Robin Pope, who has worked on parentage issues in Oregon for two decades, told the committee the bill addresses gaps in privacy and record access for people conceived through assisted reproductive technologies (ART). She urged protections for donor, recipient and donor‑conceived families and emphasized the group’s decision to make a records “ceiling” prospective rather than broadly retroactive. “Secrecy is, I think, is not a good idea, but privacy is,” Pope said, arguing that donor‑conceived people and their families need safeguards against commercial data mining of medical records.

Multiple donor‑conceived adults and donors also testified in support. Kaylene Breeding, an egg donor, described harms she attributes to anonymous donation and urged the committee to allow donor‑conceived adults access to origins information. Caitlin Bowler of the U.S. Donor Conceived Council and Dana Ravecchio offered testimony emphasizing identity formation and medical‑history benefits for donor‑conceived people. Kate Cooper Richardson, director of the Oregon Child Support Program (Department of Justice), and Mike Ritchie, assistant attorney general and child support counsel, said modernizing parentage law also supports child‑support and benefits determinations by clarifying who may initiate adjudication of parentage.

Committee members asked whether donor registry provisions are retroactive. Witnesses repeatedly said the dash‑1 version as presented is prospective: a donor‑conceived adult could request donor identifying information after turning 18 only for births occurring after the statute’s operative date, and retroactive relief was not included in the dash‑1 as posted. Supporters noted the practical limits of older medical records and said the work group considered, but did not include, broad retroactivity in the current draft.

The committee closed the SB 163 public hearing and scheduled a work session on the bill for April 7. No formal committee action on SB 163 occurred at the March 31 meeting.

Why it matters: Sponsors and multiple stakeholders said SB 163 would align Oregon law with contemporary family‑building practices, provide clearer procedures for courts handling complex parentage claims, and give donor‑conceived adults statutory access to donor medical and identifying information at adulthood. The bill’s supporters emphasized that many of the changes are intended to secure legal rights and medical information for children across a broad range of family forms.

Looking ahead: The committee posted a work session for SB 163 on April 7; sponsors indicated additional dash amendments were expected and that technical and limited policy fixes could appear in those next drafts.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee On Judiciary 03/31/2025 3:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 163, a package of changes to Oregon’s parentage statutes, drew extended testimony March 31 before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, with backers saying the bill modernizes how courts establish parentage in cases involving assisted reproduction, surrogacy and gamete donation.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",17923,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6097397,"Testimony backs THC‑based possession limits in SB 1144; industry argues weight limits encourage high‑potency products",877,3869000,4746000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2828214-5a9993b37a5415f302eb26d6f2e26cf1&start=3869&end=4746","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2828214-5a9993b37a5415f302eb26d6f2e26cf1/thumbnail_3869000.jpg","/articles/6097397/Oregon/Testimony-backs-THCbased-possession-limits-in-SB-1144-industry-argues-weight-limits-encourage-highpotency-products","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6097397-d5c03f1689300561b9dcdc47f95c44d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1773578096&Signature=EfLwUyD46pp6VFBWtRALOFqHZV5MlWGYSJJ8o8QKzM86JtXuey7X4lT7gAMcmgMXhFhnNYRTmpLp5~M~we6eG3RZ5Zkv9yTdHe-qScD4sGlQUL27rjWkRaJJ51c6GfG9uJcMahg~52ZEA51Zw4YJQE6LUuEdWE2voSw~Se17-JNaBtbHW2P4oVXn9YWTv6r1yzM7VOiC830k420WgCoSQTFxdyfxJa3z18qAuM9sm9bHsSDreE0nWkjIBiXE9rJWTfN9nPmu-wZwoiyuHh7KRvUCQc5haDyZDS89Y6aYw9sic5aDnimKV~03tE80syA0l0poWSzmgreYbbYdZqadhg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 1144 drew testimony March 31 from industry and advocacy witnesses who told the Senate Committee on Judiciary that Oregon’s statutory, weight‑based possession limits for cannabis edibles and beverages encourage smaller, higher‑potency products and complicate safe dosing.

Under current statute the personal possession limit for cannabinoid products in solid form is weight‑based (for example, 16 ounces for edibles in statute) and for liquid form is 72 ounces; the dash‑1 amendment would treat an individually sealed container as a single container regardless of package size, and would create unlawful possession amounts for liquid cannabinoid products where the total delta‑9 THC exceeds 10 grams in liquid forms unless the holder is a licensee, staff summarized to the committee.

Jesse Bonacue, executive director of the Cannabis Ministry Alliance of Oregon, told the committee the present weight‑based limits permit a store to sell many small, high‑potency edibles or drinks and make it difficult for consumers and regulators to set sensible sales and possession limits. “This amendment simply changes the possession limits to a THC limit instead of a weight based limit,” Bonacue said, explaining that the OLCC (Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission) uses statutory possession limits as a guide when setting retail sales limits.

John Tapper, sales and marketing manager for Magic Number (a cannabis beverage company), described practical examples: 12‑ounce cans and 8‑ounce bottles sold in multiple potencies (10 mg, 25 mg, 100 mg). Tapper said the 72‑ounce volume limit allows widely variable total THC to be sold depending on packaging and potency, and that moving to a THC‑based possession limit would better align consumer behavior with safe dosing and state tax collection. Tapper also said hemp‑derived THC beverages sold outside the regulated OLCC system have no comparable volume limits and generate no excise tax revenue.

Committee members questioned whether possession limits are set in statute or rule; witnesses confirmed the statutory limits (weight/volume) remain in ORS and that the OLCC sets sales limits consistent with statute. Witnesses emphasized the amendment would not change OLCC rulemaking authority but would enable the commission to regulate sales using a THC‑based possession cap as the statutory baseline.

The committee closed the SB 1144 public hearing. No committee votes were taken on the dash‑1 amendment; the committee posted a work session for SB 1144 on April 3, 2025.

Why it matters: Witnesses said changing possession limits from weight/volume to total THC would reduce incentives for ultra‑concentrated, small packages that can make dosing harder to control, allow more consistent consumer expectations and could increase taxable sales within the regulated system. Opponents (none testified at the March 31 hearing) could raise concerns about market effects, enforcement and cross‑jurisdictional issues with hemp products.","Senate Bill 1144 drew testimony March 31 saying Oregon’s weight‑based possession limits for cannabis edibles and beverages encourage high‑potency small packages; witnesses urged replacing volume/weight caps with a total delta‑9 THC possession limit and treating each sealed container as a single unit.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6097402,"Committee hears rival testimony on SB 238 drone changes; law enforcement backs broader use, ACLU warns of surveillance risk",1485,2521000,4006000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2828214-5a9993b37a5415f302eb26d6f2e26cf1&start=2521&end=4006","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2828214-5a9993b37a5415f302eb26d6f2e26cf1/thumbnail_2521000.jpg","/articles/6097402/Oregon/Committee-hears-rival-testimony-on-SB-238-drone-changes-law-enforcement-backs-broader-use-ACLU-warns-of-surveillance-risk","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6097402-9569bc5df1bdffdf6940e758e437a67d/orig.mp4?Expires=1773578096&Signature=n1SwOK4O9xKCKoH-fZjupkbzcpVhPAMBgGjZyWEEXYmL2TWopkJfIqzlEoZmKbpR29J1eKiSmHGS-VNQt-uCj1iLYVO~qEg7UyZXPbbBdRkbJAaYBtreoCRt4dIjlqHOYScalYkXweARb9Glzpu~H2RV4bHEVEKRhu7RSo5SJu75dLFuZwmqAirGZeSG1lNnGr7AgsjE~wv~KrqtMnVNDkqxOZwlRHJFVm7V4IlfZEJZU7WDM6WvifE44wAwhSob1AJ73a8ZVuoKf-zqfpvg70lMXv~X9Bt9J2pwx6Cm0riuHzmdsGdGThexUb~stT00c~m4eo08MN-Udu9185TPpQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 238, as amended (dash‑1), drew sharply contrasting testimony March 31 before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, with law‑enforcement representatives urging broader permission for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or drones) in routine police activities and civil‑liberties groups warning of privacy and constitutional risks.

The dash‑1 amendment permits law enforcement to operate a UAS in connection with lawful police activity and lists example uses; it also forbids certain operations, including flights over commercial property without owner consent and conspicuous posted notice, and generally prohibits UAS use for traffic enforcement except when actively pursuing a fleeing suspect, a staff summary said.

Police chiefs, sergeants and UAS program leaders testified in favor of the amendment as a practical update that would allow drones to assist in fires, medical emergencies, crash reconstruction, search and rescue, “drone‑as‑first‑responder” programs, and officer safety overwatch. Chris Skinner, chief of police in Eugene, told the committee drone programs can provide “situational awareness” while reducing risk to officers and the public. Kyle Williams, a Eugene sergeant and vice president of the Law Enforcement Drone Association (LITA), described cases where timely UAS deployment assisted captures and de‑escalation.

“By allowing officers to assess situations remotely, UAS minimized the need for immediate officer deployment, reducing the risk of forced confrontations,” Williams said.

Multiple local pilots and program leaders stressed operational limits in current Oregon law, including provisions that restrict drone deployment absent exigent circumstances and that require court filing after some search‑and‑rescue operations. Several witnesses urged reworking subsection 3(a) of the dash‑1 to avoid undue limits on beneficial uses.

The ACLU of Oregon opposed the dash‑1 amendment. Michael Abrams, policy counsel, said the draft provides an “including but not limited to” list of allowed uses and risks creating a legislative “blank check” permitting extensive drone deployments. Abrams warned that broad authorization could facilitate mass aerial surveillance, chill free speech and assembly, and prompt constitutional challenges under Article I, Section 9 and the federal Fourth Amendment.

“Removing this well‑struck balance severely undermines the public interest in a limited police power that yields to honoring people’s rights,” Abrams said, urging retention of existing warrant requirements in ORS 837.320 (as cited in testimony).

Committee members asked operational questions — including how identification of law‑enforcement drones is handled in the field and how often officers would need to fly over private or commercial property. Police witnesses said some drones carry lights and other identifiers but added that rapid changes in technology and aftermarket options make consistent marking challenging.

The committee closed the SB 238 public hearing; at the March 31 session, no formal committee vote was recorded on the dash‑1 amendment. The committee also scheduled a work session for SB 238 on April 3, 2025.

Why it matters: Supporters argued the amendment would let departments — especially smaller agencies that cannot afford crewed aviation — use UAS to improve response times, reduce risks and increase efficiency. Opponents said the bill’s language risks constitutional privacy violations and urged narrower statutory language or preserved warrant requirements.","Senate Bill 238, as amended (dash‑1), drew sharply contrasting testimony March 31 before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, with law‑enforcement representatives urging broader permission for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or drones) in routine police activities and civil‑liberties groups warning of privacy and constitutional risks.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6097392,"Committee adopts narrow dash‑1 for SB 233 to permit limited hernia‑mesh claims, advances bill to floor",0,4720000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2828214-5a9993b37a5415f302eb26d6f2e26cf1&start=4720&end=4720","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2828214-5a9993b37a5415f302eb26d6f2e26cf1/thumbnail_4720000.jpg","/articles/6097392/Oregon/Committee-adopts-narrow-dash1-for-SB-233-to-permit-limited-herniamesh-claims-advances-bill-to-floor","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6097392-3083957d71ed3466e54ec0264f9ae7d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1773578096&Signature=kaWvdZpy2bZcMW7Mna4T88CyQVXxZ80VG3xKnV0hK-eCQFlHV-EvKcdIit65BlTKGvJuZC2xwkLRLSdWMkb7UxhGYu33jwjaZUzN54-o6pw8zlTyP5E3jFbpNQ7BITA6xVt7gB4MvkIPsxxH3Zw5C9Fs-Y5fD8yDPdG13t39u4NuLzqOFQ8eF0i4LY44uajasQMUl~Bg~PpqDb60P4ZMq2wv2h2JTsOf98LUmW3~9ZOObUc6o8K5tg6xRFXLyDcHoCkA0-6KqCNqgQMx5V-JfIm6jpJ2b7yQiF81SjVVx4T55B8-WblMXE1x60qmw4QU48GrfnmSDiA5KHZKKlTppQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Judiciary on March 31 adopted a narrowly tailored dash‑1 amendment to Senate Bill 233 and advanced the amended bill to the Senate floor with a due‑pass recommendation.

As introduced, SB 233 would have extended the statute of ultimate repose for medical‑malpractice claims to 10 years. The adopted dash‑1 amendment instead replaces the bill with a limited provision that allows a person to bring a cause of action within one year of the bill’s effective date for claims arising from medical or surgical treatment connected to the removal of a hernia mesh if that removal occurred on or after Jan. 1, 2018 and before Jan. 1, 2019. The amendment excludes actions already settled or adjudicated prior to the effective date.

Senator Thatcher moved adoption of the dash‑1 amendment; the committee recorded aye votes and the amendment was adopted. The committee then voted to move SB 233, as amended, to the Senate floor with a due‑pass recommendation. Roll‑call snippets recorded in the hearing transcript list multiple senators voting aye on both the amendment and the motion to advance the bill; the chair announced the motion carried and the bill was “on its way to the floor.”

Committee discussion referenced the drafting practice of the legislative counsel to craft narrowly targeted, date‑bounded relief in cases where stakeholders sought an opportunity to litigate a specific past event. Sponsors characterized the dash‑1 as a limited, case‑specific remedy that would give an identified individual an opportunity to pursue claims in court without broadly reopening settled litigation.

Why it matters: The committee’s action creates a short, one‑year revival window tied to a specified set of surgical removals and dates. Supporters said the limited approach corrects a particular perceived wrong while avoiding broader changes to medical malpractice repose periods.

Action and votes recorded in committee: the committee adopted the dash‑1 amendment (motion by Senator Thatcher), then voted to advance SB 233, as amended, to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation. The transcript records committee members voting “aye” on both steps and the chair announcing that the motions carried.","The Judiciary Committee adopted a dash‑1 amendment to SB 233 to allow a one‑year revival window for medical claims tied to hernia‑mesh removal occurring between Jan. 1, 2018 and Jan. 1, 2019; the committee voted to send the amended bill to the Senate floor with a due‑pass recommendation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate committee hears broad support for SB 163 to modernize Oregon parentage law

Testimony backs THC‑based possession limits in SB 1144; industry argues weight limits encourage high‑potency products

Committee hears rival testimony on SB 238 drone changes; law enforcement backs broader use, ACLU warns of surveillance risk

Committee adopts narrow dash‑1 for SB 233 to permit limited hernia‑mesh claims, advances bill to floor