>
554 P.2d 177;
1976 Ore. LEXIS 540
August 30, 1976, Argued
September 10, 1976
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:
[***1]
Petition for Rehearing Pending.
PRIOR HISTORY:
Petition for review of an order of the Secretary of State.
DISPOSITION: Order affirmed.
COUNSEL:
Steve Anderson, Salem, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Catherine Allan, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her
on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and W. Michael Gillette,
Solicitor General, Salem.
JUDGES: In Banc. Denecke, C.J.
OPINIONBY: DENECKE
OPINION:
[*179]
[**178] This is one of several original proceedings to review orders of the Secretary
of State deleting portions of arguments submitted for insertion in the voters’
pamphlet. The argument in this particular proceeding is in support of an
initiative measure which would prohibit adding
fluoride to water systems. In another proceeding,
Oregonians for
Nuclear Safeguards v. Myers, decided this date, we set out the procedures provided by statute and the
scope of our review.
Petitioner submitted the following argument to the Secretary of State:
“The addition of
fluoride or fluoride containing compounds to the State’s water supplies should be of grave concern
to every Oregonian.“Rep. James J.
Delaney of New York,[***2] in a July 21, 1975 speech before Congress ‘recommended immediate suspension of
all artificial fluoridation pending further investigation’. Rep. Delaney’s
deep concern on this issue was based on the report by two eminent scientists
who found a definite fluoridation-cancer
link in their research studies.“25,000 OR MORE EXCESS CANCER DEATHS OCCUR ANNUALLY IN U.S. CITIES SUBJECTED TO
IMPOSED WATER FLUORIDATION — A DEATH EVERY 20 MINUTES!“There has been a posted $ 100,000.00 reward for the last twenty-five years to
anyone who can prove
scientifically that the addition of
fluoride to the water at the rate of one part per million is absolutely safe, and no
one has yet been able to claim the reward!“Fluoridation, thusly, besides being a ‘killer’, means creation of another
bureaucracy, government interference, higher taxes, and higher water bills.“BE SMART!
PROTECT YOUR HEALTH!! SAVE DOLLARS!“VOTE YES FOR BALLOT MEASURE #11.”
The Secretary of State held a hearing and deleted the underlined portions.
Petitioner petitions to have this order of deletion reviewed.
[*180] The petitioner offered no evidence at the hearing. Exhibits included in the
petitioner’s
[***3] brief to this court
will not be considered as they were not offered at the hearing.
There was testimony by the opponents of the measure and proposed argument that
the fluoridation of water does not cause cancer or cause death in any other
form. There was also testimony that while fluoridation would raise water bills
about $ .17 per person per year, there would be no
increase in taxes; rather, fluoridation would save taxpayers millions of
dollars per year in decreased dental expense.
We hold there is evidence supporting the Secretary of State’s order.
Affirmed.
Return to Fluoride-Related Court Cases
Return to Fluoridation page
Return to ACTION Center Homepage
http://actionpa.org/fluoride/lawsandcourts/or-referendum.html