Taxpayer-Funded Abortions for Illegal Immigrants? Here Are Some of Oregon’s 750 New Laws

Oregon lawmakers passed hundreds of new bills this year, many of which will go into effect on Jan. 1.

While sitting in for Glenn on today’s show, Doc and Kal talked about some of the new state laws for 2018. They couldn’t figure out why Oregon needed 750 new laws; how do you even think of that many things to tell people not to do?

Here are some of the new laws set to be effective in Oregon on New Year’s Day:

  • The gas tax will rise 4 cents to 34 cents.
  • The age limit to buy tobacco will increase to 21.
  • Oregon judges will be able to issue “extreme risk protection orders” taking away firearms from people deemed an immediate threat to themselves or family members.
  • Speed limits will be lowered from 25 mph to 20 mph for residential streets in Portland.
  • Women who are in the country illegally will be able to get an abortion paid for by taxpayers.
  • Riding public transportation without paying a fare will be downgraded from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor (although penalties increase for anyone who evades fare three times or more).

Has Oregon passed up California as the most liberal state in the union? Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: All right. We're sharing some of the crazy new laws going into effect as of January 1st. And by crazy, that might be redundant. Crazy new laws. It's just new laws, because most of them are going to be crazy. If you've been around for hundreds of years and you still need this many laws, yeah, this is more about you than actually creating a society where we can all live and just go about our business and try to excel.

Also in Oregon, family members or law enforcement will be able, as of Monday to go to a judge and ask them to remove the firearm from somebody who is deemed a danger to themselves or others.

Who is able to deem them a danger? I don't know.

KAL: You said family members?

DOC: Yeah, family members or law enforcement can go to the judge. But I don't know if it's the family member, if it's their standard: He didn't eat his broccoli today. He's a danger. I don't know if it's -- or it has to have some sort -- do you have to go talk to a professional. And even that professional, what type of professional? Who decides?

KAL: And do they investigate? And what are the standards?

DOC: I guess it's like getting a subpoena from a judge. Can be like, yeah, sure.

KAL: Can't you do that already? If I go to the police and I say, hey, my uncle Bob is a bit of a kook, and he's -- we think he's a danger to himself. Plus, he's got guns. I'd like you to check it out. You can do that already.

DOC: They can't remove the gun. It's more of, they can put him in an asylum for a certain amount of time.

KAL: Or at least put him on the radar.

DOC: Right. Or put him on the radar. And there are standards of how long he can be in and this stuff. But this specifically targets the firearm. And the judge then can say, you can't possess a firearm for a year. Now, here's the thing, they say you can't. Of course, you can still just get one. Remember, Adam Lanza, who shot up the kids at Newton, Sandy Hook. Guess what, he didn't own the gun. He stole his moms. This happens quite often. So this will do no good for what they hope it will do.

Also in Oregon, they're expanding free reproductive health treatments for women, including abortions.

KAL: Ah.

DOC: Even for women who are in the country illegally.

Now, they don't do so much for men's reproductive health. Not a lot of free stuff for men. But a whole lot for the ladies.

KAL: And illegal.

DOC: And illegals, right.

KAL: Because they obviously should get everything.

DOC: If you're an illegal woman, wow, Oregon is a place to be.

KAL: Really?

DOC: Wouldn't that just be a beacon for you?

Some interesting new laws in Indiana. Starting Monday, using a drone to interfere with law enforcement, harass someone, or peep inside of a home is now a class A misdemeanor on Monday. It's punishable up to a year in jail and a 5,000-dollar fine.

This is one of the few areas where I make exceptions and say, we need some new laws and some adjustments or tweaks to old laws. Technology. Budgets change every year, so you need to get together for the budget as a legislature. But new technologies, well, we never foresaw drones. Now these things are becoming a problem. So how do we fit those into current law?

KAL: Yeah, so technology that's advancing and changing, it definitely needs something.

DOC: As of Monday in Indiana, anyone who uses force to rescue a pet from a locked vehicle, is immune from criminal penalties. For example, if you go up to the car and it's really hot and you see the dog suffering and you break the window, no criminal charges for breaking the car window of the car you don't own, provided you have called the cops and you remain at the scene while the cops are getting there. So you call the cops. Go, come quick.

Fido is in the back of the car, and it's really hot. And they go, we're on our way. And you stand there. You break the glass. You cannot be criminally charged. However, you are still liable for half cost of any damage of the vehicle.

KAL: I'm okay with that one.

DOC: Just half of it? Okay.

KAL: If you're someone who is -- I guess it comes down to what is suffering or not. If somebody leaves their pet in the vehicle that could die or be harmed.

DOC: What about these stories where somebody says, I thought it was suffering pet, and it was a stuffed animal. I thought it was a baby, and it was a doll.

KAL: Oh, yeah.

DOC: So now they're only responsible for half the window? And it's my car. Do I have to pay the other half, my insurance? Sorry. It should include, if you get it wrong, you pay the whole damn thing, plus my time and effort to go down there and get it fixed. I don't even want to have to make the call. And I don't want to be without a car, none of that stuff. But they didn't include that.

KAL: That's for next year.

DOC: That's it. Well, we need to leave something for next year.

KAL: 751.

DOC: Protection orders in Indiana on Monday can be issued by a judge. And they can now include an explicit prohibition against harming a family pet. These are protection owners for, like, domestic disputes. Taking custody of a pet away from the abuser with police assistance. And this is a new trend. New laws to protect pets.

In fact, one of the ones that they're continuing to push. And you're going to see this have a big spread in the next year or so. They're going to push this idea of domestic abuse against pets.

So, you know, you go home.

KAL: Isn't there any animal rights protection abuse?

DOC: There are animal laws in some areas and they vary. But what they'll do is put this under the umbrella of domestic.

See, domestic disputes are different. Cops can press charges, even if a spouse says they don't want to in many areas.

So if you punch me and the cop goes, all right, Doc, you punched her. I can say, I don't. It's Kal. He was just drunked up. I get it. No harm. No foul. I'm good. And they don't have to press charges.

If a spouse does that, the officers have the right to press charges. Because so often, people were afraid and they said, no, no, no. We're going to go ahead and push this thing through.

They want that to include pets too. Because they want people to conflate human lives with pets. You may love your pets, but they're different. So this is going to expand in the future where you see domestic disputes can include, well, he slapped the dog or whatever. And you're going to be locked up for that stuff.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips after he had refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding. So, the Left is after him again.

Phillips says that on the same day of the Supreme Court decision, he received a call from an attorney asking him to make a cake that fades from blue to pink to celebrate his gender transition. Phillips again refused. He has also been harassed by the same attorney with multiple requests for cakes celebrating everything from drug use to Satanism. Naturally, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is going after Phillips for discrimination. Again.

RELATED: The 'Masterpiece Cakeshop' ruling is actually a win for LGBT rights

Well, Phillips has understandably had enough. This week he filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado. In the lawsuit, Phillips says his family lost 40 percent of its income due to the harassment he has received. He also says he and his employees were forced to complete a "reeducation program" about not exercising his faith at work.

In the Declaration of Independence, just before the list of specific grievances against King George III, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"To prove this [talking about the king's tyranny], let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

The Left isn't interested in liberty and justice for all.

I wonder, do candid citizens in the U.S. notice that the tyranny against personal liberty, and religious liberty is not coming from the Right? Really, you would think that the Left would be all about the anything goes, to each his own kind of philosophy. "You do you," that's the typical Leftist philosophy, isn't it? It's certainly the spirit of postmodernism.

But the Left isn't interested in liberty and justice for all. They're interested in liberty and justice only for their vetted list of oppressed groups.

The Left is also pretty confident in its ownership of the "bigot" label to slap on whomever it deems necessary. But let's just go ahead and say it since no one else will – the Left is bigoted toward Christianity. This has nothing to do with the state of Colorado defending LGBT rights, and everything to do with their contempt for Jack Phillips' religious beliefs.

You know you're in for trouble any time an article begins with the following words: "These have been challenging times to be white in America."

Oh. I see where this is going:

People who aren't white may find this surprising. After all, it has been decades since white people could feel so free about loving their whiteness, or so openly celebrate whiteness, or talk about how much they relish being white and doing white activities.

RELATED: Redemption of a Grand Dragon: Can such a hateful person actually change?

Those are the opening lines of a recent NBC News op-ed- titled "Are 'white people' jokes racist? Let a fellow white person explain." I mean, it would make for incredible satire. I mean, if it were mocking the outrageous postmodern mental gymnastics of the modern Left, this article would be awe-inducing in its satirical prowess. Alas, it is not. It's real. The author, somehow, means what he's writing.

You know the routine: Racism against white people isn't a real thing. It's a clever mechanism which allows that racism against white people is purely linguistic, based on the idea that power determines who can say what.

You know the routine: Racism against white people isn't a real thing.

The idea is embodied by the entire article, but one sentence in particular smacks of it: "one of the great things about being white is that you'll never have to know what racism feels like (on the receiving end anyway)."

I think I know what it feels like. It feels like someone is judging based entirely on my skin color. Kinda like this entire article about how white people cannot be judged based entirely on their skin color. How does that not make sense?

The great censorship jihad continue'ith. And maybe one of the most bizarre developments in this war is how members of the media have formed a Caliphate to wage this jihad. There are actually beat reporters from the mainstream media, hanging on every word Alex Jones says with the hopes of catching him violating social media terms of service rules.

If these mainstream media jihadis catch Jones in the act of saying anything haram - or forbidden - they instantly charge the battlefield and pummel companies like Twitter with examples of how their rules are being infringed upon. Their strategy bared more fruit yesterday. Twitter, one of the last platforms Alex Jones still had, slapped him with a seven-day ban.

RELATED: Alex Jones BANNED?!

I just can't understand where the Media Caliphate is coming from here. When you're in the business of and count on, the free flow of information, is it not counter-productive to your business model to advocate for censorship? Do you not see the slippery slope you're on? Look, I get it. You think Alex Jones is looney tunes and maybe even dangerous, but silencing ideas and information should never be the answer.

Countering crazy and dangerous speech with rational and sane speech should be your mission… not censorship. You're helping Jones get silenced and cheering it on, but what will you do when someone comes to censor you? Because that's where this is headed.

But while the call for jihad was raised for Alex Jones, and silence now falls on his Twitter account, these accounts still have full access. The Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, Beverly Hills Antifa, Antifa Philadelphia… there are more Antifa twitter accounts than I have time to mention.

The radical Left is so well represented on Twitter, you'd think they have their own private office at Twitter headquarters right next to Jack. The Revolutionary Communist Party of America is but one still posting and calling for things like - you know - just the violent takeover of the U.S. government.

I hope the advocates for censorship enjoy these early victories because it won't be long before the monster they're unleashing turns on the master.

But the Media Caliphate isn't calling for their social media heads. They just want people like Alex Jones and Gavin McGinnis to shut up. I sure it doesn't have anything to do with - no it couldn't be - this is crazy talk, but both Jones and McGinnis work for rival media outlets and deliver rival narratives to the mainstream media.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with it. If smaller outlets like CRTV and Infowars are cutting into their viewership and stealing their YouTube and Social Media clicks, would it benefit the Caliphate to come at them full bore on a digital battlefield where they're currently getting their butts kicked? You bet it would, but that's just crazy talk.

I hope the advocates for censorship enjoy these early victories because it won't be long before the monster they're unleashing turns on the master.

How could you say no to that face?

WANG ZHAO/AFP/Getty Images

Do you trust your own ability to unplug from technology? Some people born before the 1990s are wearing it as a badge of honor now – that they quit Facebook, or they do a regular technology fast.

We like to think we're not overly dependent on technology, while posting on social media about how old-school we are. That's all well and good until the technology starts giving you puppy dog eyes and producing digital crocodile tears. What if your robot begs you not to turn it off? Will you still do it?

RELATED: Glenn's Predictions on Technology and AI for 2018

This isn't science fiction anymore. It's right around the corner. And if you're skeptical whether humans will treat robots like a family member, a new study might alter your view.

Researchers in Germany set up an experiment to examine how people treat robots when the robots act like humans. Each human participant was asked to work with a robot named Nao to create a weekly schedule and answer a series of questions.

What the participants didn't know was that completing the tasks was just a way for the researchers to find out what they were really interested in – how the participant's interaction with Nao would affect their ability to shut down the robot when asked.

Half of the participants were asked to shut down Nao without the robot protesting. But the other half of the participants heard Nao plead with them, saying: "No! Please do not switch me off! I am scared that it will not brighten up again!"

Of the 43 people who heard Nao's plea, 13 chose not to turn him off. Some said they felt sorry for him, others that they didn't want to act against his will.

The other 30 people did turn him off, but they took twice as long on average to do so than the group that did not hear the robot's plea.

Our 2018 problems will suddenly seem very quaint.

The experiment confirms previous research demonstrating that humans are prone to treat technology, especially robots with human-like traits, as living beings.

Now, take this human tendency, and fast-forward a few years in the future when robots will look, sound, and act human, and know everything about us. Our 2018 problems will suddenly seem very quaint.