Committee hears hours of testimony on civil‑commitment reform bills HB 2467 and HB 2488; supporters call for clearer standards and more treatment capacity, some

The House Committee on Judiciary opened a public hearing April 3 on House Bill 2467 (with a dash‑3 amendment) — a widely discussed package of changes to Oregon’s civil‑commitment statutes — and later heard related technical amendments in House Bill 2488 (dash‑1). Supporters described HB 2467 as a targeted set of clarifications that would let clinicians and judges consider whether someone is likely to cause "serious physical harm" to themselves or physical harm to others in the "near future," rather than requiring immediate, imminent harm; the bill also enumerates factors courts may consider and separates the legal standards for "danger to self" and "danger to others." OJD and other participants later described HB 2488 dash‑1 as technical, with provisions on diversion, a 14‑day voluntary treatment option, and earlier appointment of counsel.

Why it matters: Testimony framed the bills as attempts to reduce criminalization of severe mental illness (the so‑called "aid‑and‑assist" pathway), to give clinicians and courts clearer guidance, and to make civil commitment a more usable last‑resort medical intervention for people with severe psychiatric illness and anosognosia (lack of awareness of illness). Opponents cautioned the proposals risk increasing coercive treatment and highlighted traumatic experiences under current involuntary‑treatment practices.

Major proponents and their arguments Chris Bonneth, executive director of NAMI Oregon, said the bill came from a broad,…