Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/31/1997 09:00 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 24 PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
CHAIRMAN WILKEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:00 a.m. and announced that
testimony and deliberations on SB 24 would continue.
DR. PETER NAKAMURA , Director of the Division of Public Health,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), presented
information on questions asked by committee members at the previous
hearing. With regard to the number of Native American physicians
in Alaska, it is difficult to ascertain because statistics on
physicians do not include ethnic identification. Dr. Nakamura was
personally aware of five Native American physicians who work for
Native corporations and the Public Health Service. Two are female
physicians, and of the five, two are Alaska Natives. Other Native
American physicians have practiced, and may be practicing in
Alaska, however an actual count is not available. To obtain the
number of female physicians in Alaska, he counted the number of
female physicians licensed in association registers. There are
126.
Number 097
DR. NAKAMURA provided a packet of information to committee members
regarding the nature of counseling and counselor training. The
packet included DHSS information made available to all public
health nurses and nurse practitioners, as well as statements and
directives of the American College of OBGYN and the residency
program. Regarding the psychological impact of abortion on young
women, 225 cases were identified in a literature search. The
summary of the study performed using those 225 cases is included in
the packet. The study dates back to the period when abortions were
illegal to the present, and reports trends in terms of the
psychological impact on minors who delivered children compared to
minors who had abortions. There has been a significant change in
those trends. When abortion was illegal, the psychological impact
was definitely stronger on those minors who had abortions. With
time, education, practice, and better knowledge, a total shift has
occurred so that now the stronger psychological impact is on those
minors who carry a pregnancy to term.
Number 126
SENATOR GREEN questioned the basis upon which Dr. Nakamura's last
statement was made. DR. NAKAMURA replied that the information is
based on the evaluation of the studies that have been done through
this extended period of time.
SENATOR WARD asked what dates the 225 cases covered. DR. NAKAMURA
said the cases date from the pre-war years to the present.
SENATOR WARD asked for the specific years. DR. NAKAMURA was una
to cite specific years at that moment, therefore SENATOR WARD note
he would get the information at a later time.
DR. NAKAMURA responded to the remaining questions from the previous
committee hearing. Regarding the risk of breast cancer following
an abortion, a study was published in January, 1997 in the New
England Journal of Medicine. The study was conducted in Denmark,
where registers on abortion are kept, and included 1,500,000
females. The study demonstrated there is absolutely no correlation
between the practice of abortion and breast cancer. The study
disputed the Harborview study and identified how it was defective.
In the Harborview study, a retrospective review was conducted on
women with cancer to find out if they had abortions. It was
determined women who already had cancer were more readily willing
and able to disclose they had abortions, than those who did not
have cancer. The use of that group skewed the information
measurably. In the Denmark study, names were taken from the
registry, which began in 1973, and from records kept prior to that
time. The women were contacted to find out whether they did, or
did not, have cancer. The results refuted the previous studies.
Number 176
SENATOR WARD asked whether the American Medical Association
conducted the study in Denmark. DR. NAKAMURA answered no, it was
conducted by the Danish medical association. SENATOR WARD asked
whether the study was overseen by American doctors. DR. NAKAMURA
responded it was not and explained the study was done independently
and was reviewed by the scientific community and approved for
journal publication. That process takes about one year, sometimes
longer.
SENATOR WARD questioned whether any American medical doctors
participated in the other one. DR. NAKAMURA stated he could not
identify them as authors but he could not say they did not
participate in any way. He offered to find out the nationalities
of the authors.
Number 188
Regarding the question on the risk of abortions compared to the
risk of term deliveries, DR. NAKAMURA informed committee members
that there is no study that he is aware of that demonstrates that
the risk of abortion is greater than the risk of a delivery.
SENATOR WARD remarked the National Association of Social Workers
(NASW) has made the statement that in all cases it is safer to have
an abortion than to deliver. He asked Dr. Nakamura if he agreed
with that statement. DR. NAKAMURA did not agree that to be true in
all cases. SENATOR WARD asked Dr. Nakamura if the NASW's statement
was wrong. DR. NAKAMURA replied that would depend on how that
comment was stated and what NASW's intent was, and the context in
which the statement was made.
Number 214
SENATOR WARD said that since he requested the packet of information
provided by Dr. Nakamura, he wanted to make sure it was in the
packet. He appreciated Dr. Nakamura's testimony that there are two
Native female doctors who perform abortions. DR. NAKAMURA
clarified the question was not whether those doctors perform
abortions, but what the ratio of male and female physicians is in
Alaska, and how many physicians are Native Americans. No question
was asked regarding the number of physicians who perform abortions.
DHSS does not have that information, it does not know which doctors
participate in the practice.
SENATOR WARD apologized for not making himself clear. He was aware
of several instances in the Bush where young Native girls were
quite intimidated by the whole process which resulted in an
abortion. DR. NAKAMURA noted abortions are not performed anywhere
in the rural areas. SENATOR WARD indicated he understood that,
which is why he questioned how many peer pressures - how many women
or how many Natives actually perform abortions.
SENATOR WARD said he now understands that the answer is zero. He
asked whether all doctors performing abortions in Alaska have
specific training in pre and post abortion counseling, and whether
that information is verified in the packet of materials provided by
Dr. Nakamura. DR. NAKAMURA maintained the packet does not include
signed testimony by every individual physician, because he does not
know who they are, however any standards set by any organization
that deals with this practice requires practitioners to be well
versed in pre and post abortion counseling. The packet contains an
outline of those requirements laid out by the American College of
OBGYN and the college for OB residency training.
SENATOR WARD asked whether a specific training course is required
prior to practice. DR. NAKAMURA indicated the training actually
begins well before physicians specialize. All physicians are
trained in counseling; maybe not specifically in depth in an issue
like abortion counseling, but counseling itself is a rather
technical procedure that starts with an assessment process that
occurs.
Number 245
SENATOR WARD asserted he was talking specifically about abortion
counseling because he knows of young women who did not receive it
in Alaska. He is trying to determine, if in fact, the people who
are performing abortions are legally required to have specific
training for abortion counseling. DR. NAKAMURA answered they are
not required by law.
Number 256
SENATOR GREEN acknowledged she was very troubled by Dr. Nakamura's
previous testimony and even more troubled after she read the script
of his testimony. She asked whether he is the Director of the
Division of Public Health. DR. NAKAMURA responded affirmatively.
She asked whether he really believed the testimony he provided to
the committee, and then read the following paragraph from his
testimony:
Basic principles of law in society hold that parents should be
involved in, and responsible for, assuring appropriate medical
care for their children. Parents ordinarily act in the best
interests of their children, and minors benefit from the
advice and emotional support of their parents.
DR. NAKAMURA clarified he said, "minors generally benefit" because
it is not 100 percent.
SENATOR GREEN asserted he must have some very compelling reasons to
justify ignoring the basic laws and principles mentioned. DR.
NAKAMURA said "yes." SENATOR GREEN asked if she could infer from
his testimony that he believes it is okay for a 16, 15, 14, 13, 12,
or 11-year-old girl to have an abortion performed on her body
without the knowledge or consent of her parents. DR. NAKAMURA
responded that each case is an individual case. To answer Senator
Leman's question - in what kind of a situation would he recommend
this procedure if a minor refuses to involve her parents - he
contacted physicians to request real life scenarios. Dr. Nakamura
was told of a young lady who is now hospitalized in an intensive
care unit and will be there for about one year, who has feeding and
draining tubes, and is on a respirator, because she was unable to
obtain an abortion through the legal procedures, and as a result
had an illegal septic abortion. In other situations, minors have
carried fetuses without a brain or spinal chord and were therefore
not viable. In counseling these individuals indicated, in no
uncertain terms, they would seek illegal abortions or find some
other way to induce the loss of the fetus, significantly increasing
complications. There are situations where a parent or custodian
has already demonstrated he/she is abusive. One-third of all
minors who do not seek parental consent are already in abusive or
coercive situations. Over 4,000,000 undergo domestic violence
every year and 50 to 55 percent of the children in these families
have also been abused. There are situations where it is unsafe for
a physician to allow a minor to leave the office.
Number 312
SENATOR GREEN did not think this bill would encourage that type of
situation. She referred to the following statistics provided by
DHSS: 61 percent of unmarried minors inform one or both parents;
20 percent do not inform their parents but involve at least one
responsible adult such as clergy, another relative, teacher,
counselor or professional other than the principle physician. One-
third of minors who do not inform their parents have already
experienced family violence and fear it will recur. She asked
whether the one-third of minors who do not inform their parents
because of the fear of violence would comprise about 14 percent of
the total 40 percent who do not inform their parents. That would
mean about 86 percent do not experience violence in the home. Dr.
Nakamura explained he would like to go back to the articles those
numbers were taken from to verify the numbers.
SENATOR GREEN stated the inference in the testimony was that one-
third of minors are exposed to violence, yet the numbers breakdown
to 14 percent. Although 14 percent is unfortunate, actions taken
for the general population should not be based on the needs of that
limited percent of the population. DR. NAKAMURA noted the 86
percent do not need legislation, it is the 14 percent that do not
have a functional relationship with their parents and will now have
additional court requirements and abusiveness. That is the group
DHSS is concerned about.
SENATOR GREEN felt SB 24 would address the next step, a judicial
bypass, for the 14 percent. DR. NAKAMURA commented it would force
a relationship which could then become even more abusive or
detrimental. Dr. Nakamura remarked that the court system is an
intimidating process for youngsters, and is a process they are not
aware of. SENATOR GREEN doubted it would be more intimidating than
subjecting oneself to an abortion without a parent or guardian for
guidance.
Number 350
SENATOR GREEN indicated she would be submitting more questions to
Dr. Nakamura in writing and noted although she has a natural
respect for physicians, she was incredibly disappointed in the
testimony presented by Dr. Nakamura in opposition to SB 24 and in
his representation for DHSS.
SENATOR WARD asked Dr. Nakamura to supply to the committee the
number of doctors he surveyed to obtain first hand situations in
which parental consent would not be justified. DR. NAKAMURA said
he spoke to three doctors. SENATOR WARD asked how he decided which
doctors to call. DR. NAKAMURA replied he learned through
colleagues, and others, these particular doctors had a familiarity
with these kinds of problems.
Number 373
SID HEIDERSDORF supported SB 24. As the father of three girls, he
was disturbed to hear people object to a requirement ensuring that
abortion facilities and school counselors would respect his rights
and responsibilities as a parent. SB 24 makes good policy because
it supports the concept of the family and recognizes that parents
are responsible for their children. Minor children are not mature
enough to make a decision regarding serious medical matters without
parental advice, especially when the decision to have an abortion
involves a life or death decision that carries ramifications in
later years. Who, better than the parents, has the best interests
of their children at heart. In those extreme cases where that is
not true, a judicial bypass takes care of that problem.
Legislation based on extreme cases is not good law. He asked the
committee to support a principle in state law that finds parents to
be the best people to provide love and care for their children,
regardless of what kinds of statistics are presented. That policy
protects the child. The fact remains that a minor child who finds
herself pregnant may face incredible pressures from a boyfriend and
from abortion counselors at schools. They need other individuals,
hopefully the parents, to be involved in the decision. There are
plenty of individuals who have come forward and believe they were
pressured to have an abortion when they did not want one. He
disagreed with prior testimony which categorized pregnant teens
into two groups: those who go to their parents no matter what, and
those who do not. He believes there is a third group in the
middle. SB 24 is for the middle group. Regarding the dire
predictions made if SB 24 passes, similar legislation is in effect
in many other states with no detrimental effects. He added there
is a lot more to the story about the woman who will be hospitalized
for a year, referred to by Dr. Nakamura, that was revealed. The
negative psychological impacts of abortion are well known by post
abortion counselors.
Number 446
JOHN MONAGLE , President of Alaskans for Life, testified in favor of
SB 24. He was disappointed that the Administration sends
representatives to speak of gloom and doom while purporting to be
supporters of family, fairness, and justice. Twenty seven states
have successfully passed similar legislation.
BETTY HALL , representing Black Americans for Life, testified in
support of SB 24. As a retired nurse, she finds the lack of the
use of a pre-operative checklist by abortionists, to ascertain pre-
existing medical conditions, to be most disturbing. She described
a case in which a 14-year-old girl had an abortion during which
complications occurred, at which point the girl's mother was called
to sign a consent form for follow-up treatment. The medical costs
amounted to over $30,000. She questioned a policy in which consent
is required for follow-up treatment, but not for the abortion.
SENATOR WARD shared Ms. Hall's concerns about the lack of any form
of counseling guidelines for physicians who perform abortions. He
was unsure whether the cases he referred to earlier were unusual,
but those women were not fully aware of what happened to them.
From their stories, it did not appear they were given any options
or counseling.
MS. HALL could not speak to counseling since she never attended any
abortions, however she believed most girls are told the procedure
involves removing a blob of tissue, not a baby, and some of the
girls are so young they do not know what they are getting involved
in.
Number 498
JOELLE HALL testified in opposition to SB 24. She disagreed with
Senator Green's conclusion that 14 percent of cases in which the
girl does not go to her parents or clergy is too small of a
percentage to direct legislation, because that group is the most
likely to pursue illegal abortions rather than go a through
judicial bypass. It is unacceptable to deny girls their
constitutional right and possibly die as a result. Fourteen
percent is enough to warrant the protection of the law. SB 24
confuses parental desires with parental rights.
SHARYLEE ZACHARY indicated that she was leaning toward supporting
SB 24 because it is important to teach children that for every
action there is a consequence. Family members stand together to
work through the happenings and consequences, learn from them, and
encourage each other to make wiser decisions the next time and to
be responsible. It is important to teach children the great value
and sanctity of life and the value of abstinence until marriage.
One reason for the introduction of SB 24 is that many people do not
live their lives in such a manner and do not teach these truths to
their children. There are many single parent families where there
was never a marriage or commitment. There are a multitude of
fatherless families living in poverty, and children are joining
gangs to find security and a family feeling. Few people are
accepting the consequences of their actions. This bill drives a
wedge into the parent-child relationship. Parents would not be
given a chance to help their child. She questioned whether SB 24
allows people outside of the family to fill their children with the
types of lies that will cause them not to live up to their
responsibilities. She supported any legislation that does not
contribute to the breakdown of families.
Number 581
MARILYN GEORGE testified in opposition to SB 24. When working on
a crisis line in Idaho, she became aware of how scared teenagers
are of telling their parents about a pregnancy.
TAPE 97-3, SIDE B
Number 587
JOHANNA MUNSON testified in opposition to SB 24. Restrictive
bills, such as SB 24, endanger teens' health by inhibiting them
from seeking safe medical care early in pregnancy. The Legislature
is not in the position to make personal choices for individual
teenage women. If the Legislature looked at the facts and was
aware of what is really going on with teenage women who get
pregnant, it would kill the bill. Statistics reveal that 50
percent of teenagers in the Mat-Su Valley who get pregnant live in
homes where they are psychologically or sexually abused. These
young teenagers cannot be forced into a position that requires them
to consult with their parents. If 60 percent of teenagers do
consult with their parents, as statistics indicate, SB 24 will not
change that circumstance at all, and the Legislature should be
concerned about the other 40 percent. SB 24 might be the worst
thing that could be done for the 40 percent.
SENATOR WARD commented that he had looked into the teenage
pregnancy situation in his communities and his observations differ
from Ms. Munson's. He asked her to forward her statistics to the
committee.
ALICE JOHNSTONE spoke on behalf of herself and for Sitkans for
Choice, which represents the majority of women in Sitka who are
pro-choice. The real purpose of SB 24 is to prevent abortions. SB
24 will not prevent teen pregnancy or reduce the number of children
raising children. In Minnesota, the birth rate among mothers, age
15-17 increased 38.4 percent after enforcement of a parental
notification law. Statistics compiled by the federal Center for
Disease Control and other sources indicate the risk of death from
pregnancy, is, on average, 24 times higher than from the risk of
death from abortion at up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Teenagers are
much more likely to suffer medical complications attributable to
childbirth, than adults. This bill will create more teenage
mothers. There is no bill that will force unwed fathers to not
only support, but also participate in rearing their children. The
young mother gives up nine months of her life to incubate an unborn
infant, then faces the wrenching decision to give it up for
adoption or, if she chooses to keep the child, a life of poverty,
while the young man responsible gets off scott free. She
questioned why SB 24 does not have a fiscal note appropriating
funds to support these young mothers and their infants. If
Minnesota is an example, Alaska will have a third more unwed
mothers who will be applying for welfare. Even better would be an
amendment to SB 24 authorizing confidential reproductive health and
counseling services which could dispense candid information about
sexuality, reproduction, contraception, and the importance of
family support and communication. Such programs would help to
reduce teen pregnancy and also strengthen family bonds. She urged
committee members to pass SB 24 out of committee with "do not pass"
recommendations or take action to supply the kind of counseling
services mentioned in order to prevent unwanted teenage
pregnancies.
Number 518
PAT YAMAGUCHI testified in opposition to SB 24 because not all
parents communicate with their children, and some teens get
pregnant because they lack a social system that supports the
parent-child bond. As a pharmacist she has worked in many
situations where she has counseled, by the request of the physician
and teenager, about choices. Many teenagers do seek counseling
from various medical professionals, as well as their church groups,
friends, and parents. SB 24 should not be passed until other
support systems have been strengthened.
CHAIR WILKEN thanked everyone for participating, and announced
testimony on SB 24 was closed. He intends to vote on SB 24 as the
first order of business on Monday morning. He asked committee
members if they preferred to discuss the bill at that time.
SENATOR WARD relayed that Ms. Betty Hall asked him to inform
committee members that there was an abused young lady who had an
abortion and was then sent back to the abusive situation.
CHAIR WILKEN announced SB 24 would be taken up as the first order
of business on Monday.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|