Oregon Bill to Give Free Food to Children in the Country Illegally Is a Mistake

Oregon’s Democratic lawmakers just can’t seem to stop finding new ways to spend money.

Oregon is facing a slew budget troubles. Congressional Republicans want to require an increase in state support for some federal programs. A budget reconciliation bill under consideration by Congress would put Oregon at risk of losing more than $1 billion in the 2027-29 biennium because of a provision that penalizes states that provide health insurance to undocumented immigrants. But Oregon Democrats keep coming up with proposals to spend money on dubious programs.

“Right now, some Oregonians face hunger on a daily basis (OCPP) simply because of where they were born,” the Oregon Center for Public Policy says, pleading for residents to “Tell the Oregon Legislature to pass Food for All Oregonians, SB 611“.

As originally introduced, the bill would have provided nutrition assistance to residents of Oregon who are under 26 years of age or 55 years of age or older and who would qualify for federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits but for their immigration status. Rather than just killing the bill, it was subsequently amended to specify that it would apply only to children six and younger. But it’s still a bad bill.

OCCP, which claims to have a “vision of an equitable Oregon”, doesn’t seem to have a vision of an Oregon that lives within its means. Nor, apparently, do a lot of other liberal groups across the state. 

Undocumented immigrants in the United States are generally ineligible for federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. Only U.S. citizens and certain lawfully present non-citizens may receive SNAP benefits, which currently consume $122.1 billion annually, or 53%, of the Department of Agriculture’s budget.

The Food for All Oregonians Program bill initially proposed providing nutrition assistance to residents of Oregon who are under 26 years of age or 55 years of age or older and who would qualify for federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits but for their immigration status.

SB 611’s sponsors were, of course, almost all Democrats. Its chief sponsors were Sen. Wlnsvey Campos and Rep. Ricki Ruiz. Regular Sponsors were 18 more Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Mark Owens. 

The bill proposed creating the Food for All Oregonians Program in the Department of Human Services, require the department to implement the program by January 1, 2027, and mandate that the department conduct statewide outreach, education and engagement to maximize enrollment.  The amount of benefits provided to a household participating in the program would be in the same amount provided to a household of equal size that is eligible for SNAP. 

As expected, the Oregon Food Bank, a hunger relief organization serving Oregon and S.W. Washington, supports the bill. In written testimony submitted to the Senate Committee on Human Services, which noted the bill is supported by a coalition of more than 165 organizations, Oregon Food Bank argued that many people in the state who work in food production, childcare, healthcare institutions, education, transportation and other critical services throughout the state don’t now get feed benefits and that “Immigration status shouldn’t exclude anyone from being able to feed themselves or their family.”

The committee has also received a deluge of supportive testimony from other individuals and organizations.

Some commenters justify their support for the bill by asserting that Washington and California already provide SNAP-equivalent benefits to non-citizens. That is not exactly so.

Washington has a state-funded Food Assistance Program, called FAP, is a state-funded program that provides food assistance to legal immigrants who aren’t eligible for federal Basic Food benefits solely because of their immigration status., but undocumented immigrants are not eligible. [1]

In California, the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP), a state funded program, provides benefits equivalent to SNAP (called CalFresh in CA) to qualified immigrants who are not eligible for CalFresh, but with limitations. Effective October 1, 2025, CFAP will expand to cover persons age 55 or older regardless of their immigration status. 

As for Oregon, SB 611 is being put forward as the state is confronting potential federal funding cuts, everybody and their brother seems to want higher spending on schools, affordable housing, transportation and healthcare, Trump tariffs are also threatening Oregon’s export-heavy  economy and fears of a national recession are growing.

The Legislative Fiscal Office projects the cost of providing benefits for the estimated 3,200 children eligible for Food for All Oregonians under the amended bill over the next four years would total $16 million from the general fund. 

But, what the heck. It’s only money, right?.

Drug Pushers on TV: Time to Stop

Pharmaceutical companies sometimes seem to be the only advertisers on television. Should they be?

The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements, according to USC’s Center for Health Policy and Economics. The result? Drug utilization is” highly responsive” to advertising exposure and “…those who initiate treatment due to advertising are on average less adherent, which suggests that some of the increase in utilization might be unnecessary.”

Direct to consumer prescription drug advertising also exposes prospective users to often ignored risks. 

In a current television commercial for Abbvie’s Rinvoq, prescribed to treat arthritis in adults, a woman enjoys a trek through a rock canyon and a man teaches children how to tap dance. 

It all sounds so simple. Take this and you’ll get better.

But the truth is the drug has a lot of potential hazards, including:

  • Increased risk for developing serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death. Reported infections include active tuberculosis (TB), invasive fungal infections, bacterial, viral, including herpes zoster, and other infections.
  • Lymphoma and other malignancies.
  • A higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke).
  • Thrombosis, including deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and arterial thrombosis, with many of these adverse effects serious and some resulted in death.
  • Gastorintestinal (GI) perforations. 

In another case, Bristol Myers Squibb’s newest commercial for its heart disease drug, Camzyos, has a message of hope for Mike.

In a 90 second ad, Mike, a man living with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, enjoys a hike through a pleasant landscape.

“There were some days I was so short of breath I thought I’d have to settle for never stepping foot on this trail again,” Mike says in a voice-over. But now he takes Camzyos and his symptoms have improved.

But Camzyos has a lot of risks, too. Side effects may include:

  • Heart failure that can lead to death, with increased hazards when Camzyos is taken with certain other medications or grapefruit juice. 
  • New or worsening shortness of breath, chest pain, fatigue, swelling in your legs, or a racing sensation in your heart. 
  • Harm to your unborn baby if you are you pregnant or breastfeeding or you plan to become pregnant or breastfeed.
  • A reduction in how well hormonal birth control works.
  • Dizziness and fainting.

And if you take too much Camzyos, you need to call your healthcare provider or go to the nearest hospital emergency room right away.

The message of both commercials? Adam Lenkowsky, executive vice president, chief commercialization officer and head of U.S. oncology at Bristol Meyers Squibb said at a Jan. 4, 2024, investor event that the point of the commercials it’s to “bring patients into treatment”. 

In other words, the companies aren’t really pitching their drugs directly to consumers. Instead, they want prospective patients to badger doctors to prescribe it.

Such appeals must drive doctors crazy. After all, if the promoted drug was a realistic treatment option, a doctor would likely have already thought of it. The commercials are an attempt to get in the middle of the patient-doctor relationship in a way that favors the drug company. 

The FDA requires that drug advertisements “…must present a fair balance of drug benefits and risks, with the most important risks provided in an audio (i.e., spoken) format.”  But counterintuitively, “… in giving a laundry list of side effects associated with any given prescription drug…consumers may actually be more likely to believe that the drug is effective in treating the condition for which it is designed,” argues Cohen, Placitella & Roth, a Pennsylvania and New Jersey law firm that handles pharmaceutical litigation. 

In 2015, the American Medical Association called for a ban of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription drugs. Nevertheless, spending by the pharmaceutical industry on television advertisements has continued to accelerate, with national health care costs largely driven by drug spending.

It’s time to renew, and act on, AMA’s call.

UPDATE: Oct. 7, 2025: Trump’s Crackdown on Drug Ads Could Sting TV Networks

The pharmaceutical industry shelled out nearly $11 billion in 2024 for U.S. ads, and is on track to top that this year. 

The Department of Health and Human Services said Tuesday that it plans to close a decades-old loophole in Food and Drug Administration guidance that permits abbreviated descriptions of drug side effects in broadcast ads, as long as companies provide more information elsewhere, like online. That 1997 guidance is credited with fueling the boom in TV drug ads.  The administration move targets drug manufacturers’ TV ads and paid social-media ads from telehealth firms. In a letter to companies dated Tuesday, the FDA said social media has made it “increasingly difficult for patients to distinguish between evidence-based information and promotional material.” The pharmaceutical industry is among the heaviest advertising spenders in the U.S. When it comes to commercial spots during in-demand shows, they are even more prevalent. Pharmaceutical ads are the third-biggest category for linear TV and streaming ad spending in the U.S., according to estimates from MediaRadar.  Brian Wieser, an industry analyst, estimated that pharmaceutical ads account for 20% of all TV news advertising. The potential impact “will not go unnoticed,” he said.