When it comes to innovating in health care, Oregon has stayed true to its trailblazing heritage. The state remade its Medicaid network to address patients' medical, dental and mental health needs with an emphasis on prevention. It jumped at the chance to expand its Medicaid program to include hundreds of thousands of more Oregonians living on the edges of poverty. And it committed last year to provide health care coverage for all children, regardless of citizenship or immigration status.

So it's not surprising that legislators would be positioning the state to become the first in the nation to declare health care access a constitutional right - especially in defiance of the Trump Administration's hostility. Legislators in the House last week passed House Joint Resolution 203, which seeks voter approval to add a new section to the Oregon Constitution establishing the state's obligation "to ensure that every resident of Oregon has access to cost-effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right." The resolution is now under consideration in the state Senate, as The Oregonian/OregonLive's Hillary Borrud reported.

But while HJR 203 is fueled by the best of intentions, amending the constitution is unnecessary, confusing - and even risky from a legal point of view. The Oregon Senate should reject the resolution and remind their House colleagues of their existing power - through the budget decisions they make and the priorities they establish - to pursue these same goals.

One reason Oregonians should be wary of this effort: No one seems to know what adding health care access as a constitutional right would really mean. Several lawmakers describe the proposed amendment as articulating an "aspirational" goal. That's an oddly non-committal attitude for a provision that they want to enshrine in the Constitution.

And what's "aspirational" to some legislators could be seen as an iron-clad commitment by Oregonians who feel they aren't getting access to the "cost-effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care" that the proposed amendment calls for.

Legislative lawyers have acknowledged that if voters approve the amendment, the state could face lawsuits over whether it is meeting its obligations. Considering that the proposed amendment includes several subjective terms, it's not hard to imagine a lot of time, money and energy spent on lawsuits arguing the finer points of what's "medically appropriate" or "cost-effective."

The Legislature is also making promises that it simply can't keep right now, as the League of Women Voters has pointed out. Despite the group's stalwart support of broadening access to health care, the organization opposes HJR 203 for the pragmatic reason that the federal government isn't on board with an expansion and the state can't pay for what it's promising on its own. "The State of Oregon has insufficient income to support its current responsibilities and cannot provide the added cost of health care coverage for all its residents at this time," the League wrote in prepared testimony.

Oregonian editorials

Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung, Mark Katches and John Maher.

To respond to this editorial, post your comment below, submit an OpEd or a letter to the editor.

If you have questions about the opinion section, email Laura Gunderson, editorial pages editor, or call 503-221-8378.

Certainly, there's value to hearing from voters if they support universal access to health care, as the resolution's chief backer, Rep. Mitch Greenlick notes. Getting that public support is even more important as the federal government looks to gut funding. That support would send legislators a message to dedicate themselves to that goal even in these uncertain times.

But priorities don't exist in a vacuum. Do Oregonians value health care as a constitutional right over, for instance, affordable housing? Would they support funding one to the detriment of another? Oregonians expect legislators to fund both needs thoughtfully - along with education and child-welfare and many other services - without having to specifically direct them with constitutional amendments.

Besides, Oregonians are learning that legislators don't necessarily heed their messages anyway. Voters overwhelmingly passed three ballot measures in 2016 in education and veterans' services, but legislators failed to fully fund a single one of them.

In fact, Greenlick said he believes that even if voters were to reject the proposed amendment, lawmakers would still work toward expanding coverage. Which raises the question again: Why do we need a constitutional amendment? The Oregon Senate should save Oregonians from an expensive campaign and just acknowledge that we don't.

- The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board