Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/09/1997 01:38 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 24
"An Act relating to a requirement that a parent,
guardian, or custodian consent before certain minors
receive an abortion; establishing a judicial bypass
procedure by which a minor may petition a court for
authorization to consent to an abortion without consent
of a parent, guardian, or custodian; amending the
definition of 'abortion'; and amending Rules 40 and 79,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212,
213, 508, and 512.5, Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska Administrative Rules."
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, SPONSOR SB 24, spoke in support of the
legislation. He observed that the legislation allows a
judicial by-pass for minors seeking an abortion. A minor
can petition the Court instead of obtaining parental
consent. He maintained that the legislation takes a small
step backwards in order to make a big step forward. He
noted that the parental consent provision has been in
statute since 1970. This provision has not been enforced
due to concerns that, without judicial by-pass, the Alaska
law is not constitutional. The United States Supreme Court
has indicated that judicial by-pass is necessary to ensure
the constitutionality of parental consent laws. The
legislation is modeled after judicial by-pass laws in other
states, that have withstood the constitutional test by the
United States Supreme Court.
Senator Leman noted that parental consent is required for
many things. He observed that his daughter needed parental
consent to have her ears pierced. He maintained that
parental consent laws in other states have been effective in
accomplishing a reduction of teenage births and abortions.
He stated that Minnesota had a 20 to 25 percent reduction in
teenage births and pregnancies, after the passage of
parental consent laws.
Senator Leman asserted that the there is broad support for
parental involvement. Alaskan polls showed that 78 percent
of Alaskans would support parental involvement. He observed
that 27 states have and enforce parental consent statutes.
He acknowledged that the legislation is not the only answer.
He maintained that no abortion is really safe. He stressed
that nothing is being done to make abortion more rare.
Senator Leman noted that the legislation requires that
3
information regarding judicial by-pass be available at court
and magistrate offices. He noted that the original version
of the bill would apply to girls that are 17 years and
younger. The Senate version would apply to girls that are
15 years old and younger. He observed 16 and 17 year olds
account for 75 percent of abortions on children under 18.
These would not be affected by the Senate version. Senator
Leman noted that he would prefer that the bill reach more
children.
Representative Davies disputed allegations that passage of
parental consent legislation reduces teen pregnancy and
birth rates. He maintained that some statistics support the
claim that the teen birth rate increased by as much as 38
percent after parental consent laws were enacted. Senator
Leman noted that statistics can be manipulated.
Representative Davies noted that the majority of teenagers
already discuss their pregnancies with their parents. He
questioned how the legislation would increase communication
in dysfunctional families. Senator Leman acknowledged that
50 to 61 percent of pregnant teenagers discuss their
pregnancy with their parents. He stressed the need to
encourage more parental discussion. He indicated that
parents are best able to help their children. He emphasized
that the legislation is a "grandparents" bill.
Representative Kelly noted that AS 25.20.025 provides that a
minor may give consent for medical procedures if parental
consent is not available.
VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE testified via the
teleconference network. She spoke in support of SB 24. She
maintained that children do not have sufficient awareness of
their options and consequences. She maintained that many of
those that object to parental consent laws benefit
monetarily from the minor's decision.
CAROL NILSON, FAIRBANKS spoke in support of SB 24. She read
from an article in the Christian Legal Society (copy on
file). The article refers to a California Supreme Court
ruling that maintained that California parental consent law
does not violate the constitutional right of privacy.
DEBRA JOSLIN, DISTRICT REPUBLICAN CHAIR testified via the
teleconference network in support of SB 24. She felt that
the age requirement for parental consent abortions should be
raised from under 16 to under 18 years of age. She observed
that adoption is an option. She maintained that parents
have rights. She asserted that children will do what they
can get-a-way with.
4
THEDA PITTMAN, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SB 24. She provided members with a
diagram demonstrating that only a small number of children
would be affected by the legislation (copy on file). She
maintained that children that cannot talk to their parents
and cannot find their way through the court system may
resort to illegal or self induced abortions. She asserted
that the legislation has the power to destroy these
children. She stressed that a law cannot increase parent-
teen communication. She pointed out that a legal abortion
is statistically safer than delivering a baby.
AMY SKILBRED, ALASKA CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, JUNEAU testified
in opposition to SB 24. She observed that Article I,
Section 22 of the Alaska Constitution guarantees privacy
protection. She stressed that every Alaskan is protected by
this provision. She stated that the right to privacy can
only be denied when the State finds a compelling state
interest is served by denying the privacy rights due to all
citizens. She observed that SB 24 does not apply to other
medical services such as treatment of sexually transmitted
diseases and contraception. Parental consent is required by
some doctors as a protection from litigation. She
maintained that there is no compelling state interest that
sets abortion apart from other medical circumstances.
Ms. Skilbred pointed out that a teenager can have a child,
relinquish a child for adoption, and make medical decisions
for their child after birth without parental consent. She
maintained that after having a child the teenager is treated
as an adult.
Ms. Skilbred asserted that the legislation supports the
political and moral viewpoint of one group of citizens.
She reiterated that there is no compelling state interest.
Ms. Skilbred pointed out that Alaska has an explicit state
constitutional provision guaranteeing privacy rights. She
asserted that the legislation requires the expenditure of
time and money on a cause that does not solve the problem.
She stated that there is no quick fix to the teen pregnancy
problem. She noted that many teenagers face drug and
alcohol abuse, sexual harassment, eating disorders,
depression, lack of identity, and deep uncertainty about
themselves. She suggested legislators focus on promoting
healthy families.
Ms. Skilbred compared the legislation to sewing. She
maintained that the legislation does not fit over the fabric
of the Alaska State Constitution.
CARLA TIMPONE, ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY testified in opposition
5
to SB 24. She maintained that the legislation is anti-
choice. She observed that teens are twice as likely to
delay medical care. She noted that the American Medical
Association and the College of Obstetrics and Gynecology
oppose parental consent laws due to the fear that teens will
further delay seeking medical attention. She noted that
courts tend to rubber stamp petitions. In Massachusetts
only 14 of 14,000 petitions for judicial by-pass, filed by
teenagers, were denied. She asserted that the high ratio of
granted petitions demonstrates that pregnant teens are
mature enough to make this decision on their own. She
maintained that the legislation is an unfair burden on
pregnant teens.
SID HEIDERSDORF, JUNEAU spoke in support of SB 24. He
emphasized that parents have certain rights and
responsibilities in regards to their children. He
maintained that no one knows more about their children than
the parents. He asserted that parents have rights and
responsibility for their children in regards to medical
treatment. He expressed concern that parental care would be
preempted by privacy rights. He stressed that minors will
be well served by being required to consult with their
parents. He maintained that some children would consult
with their parents if required by law. He stressed that the
law is a "teacher".
Mr. Heidersdorf provided members with a handout, "Impact of
Parental Involvement Laws - Various States" (copy on file).
The handout provides statistics formulated by Human Life of
Washington.
Mr. Heidersdorf maintained that many pregnant teens do not
receive sufficient counseling.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-90, Side 2)
Representative Davies clarified that Human Life of
Washington is a pro-life group.
JOHN MONAGLE, PRESIDENT, ALASKANS FOR LIFE, JUNEAU testified
in support of SB 24. He pointed out that those opposing the
legislation have not offered solutions. He spoke in support
of parental involvement and rights.
PETE NAKAMURA, MD MPH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES noted that all
agree that it would be ideal if abortions did not occur and
that a good parent should always be involved in their
children's lives. He expressed concern with mandating that
all children consult with their parents. He pointed out
that one-third of pregnant teens are in abusive home
6
situations. He observed the difficulty teens face in
consulting non-caring parents, who may have contributed to
the problem.
Dr. Nakamura acknowledged the seriousness of the problem.
He pointed out that there is a big difference between having
your ears pierced and having a baby. He stressed that the
consequences are significant in the case of parental consent
for abortion. He expressed fear that children will seek
self induced or illegal abortions.
Dr. Nakamura noted that statistics regarding parental
consent on teenage pregnancies and births vary. He noted
that he has seen statistics which demonstrate that up to 49
percent of pregnant teens seek abortions in adjacent states,
when required to seek parental consent. He challenged
assumptions that parental consent legislation has achieved
positive results in all cases.
Dr. Nakamura referred to polls regarding parental consent.
He pointed out that responses are influenced by how
questions are asked. He pointed out that, if asked, no one
would choose to cut off their arm, unless they were also
aware it was the only way to save their life.
Dr. Nakamura reiterated that a normal abortion procedure is
safer than any normal term delivery. He emphasized that
this is particularly true for a minor who is not
anatomically developed.
Dr. Nakamura concluded by saying that he has significant
concerns regarding the legislation.
Representative Kelly read one of the survey questions to
demonstrated that it was straight forward. "As far as
parental consent is concerned, do you favor or oppose that
at least one parent give their consent before a girl 15
years of age or younger has an abortion?"
Representative Kelly pointed out that the legislation allows
minors faced with an uncaring parent to get a judicial by-
pass. He maintained that those that want to seek remedy
from the State will have easy access to a judicial by-pass.
Dr. Nakamura suggested that the outcome of the survey would
be different if the question were: "Should minors be forced
to consult their parents if their parents are abusive,
uncaring, or the cause of the problem?"
Representative Kelly reiterated that minors will not have to
confront abusive parents.
7
Dr. Nakamura acknowledged that it is better to have judicial
by-pass then to not have a remedy for the minor. He
emphasized the number of minors that will have to go through
the procedure and noted that only a small percentage are
denied. In Minnesota only 21, of 12,000 petitions were
denied. Half of the 21 denied were over-turned. He pointed
to the level of effort required to deny only 12 petitions.
He emphasized that accessing the judicial system can be
intimidating for a child.
Representative Kelly maintained that minors generally have a
counselor, teacher or health professional to help them
through the system. He provided members with a map showing
the locations of court and magistrate offices (copy on
file). He noted that minors would have to travel to Juneau,
Anchorage, or Fairbanks. He stressed that minors will have
difficulty protecting their privacy when they have to travel
to have an abortion.
Dr. Nakamura stated that there are many situations when
children are away from their home environment.
Representative Kelly stated that he would rather have the
minor seek a remedy through a third party than to go
straight to an abortion clinic.
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment 1 (copy on
file). Representative Davies OBJECTED. Amendment 1 would
change the requirement for parental consent from 16 to 18
years of age. Representative Kelly noted that children
under 18 are minors.
Representative Grussendorf spoke against Amendment 1. He
pointed out that statutory rape applies to children under 16
years of age. Children over 16 years of age can make the
decision for sexual contact.
Representative Davies pointed out that the poll cited by
Representative Kelly applied to children under 16 years of
age. He added that younger children have better
communication with their parents. He emphasized that as
children grow they start to distance themselves from their
parents as they make their own choices in life. He
expressed opposition to the amendment.
Representative Grussendorf noted that 16 years old is the
trigger age for the emancipation of a minor. Representative
Kelly pointed out that minors must go to court to obtain
emancipation.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
1.
8
IN FAVOR: Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder,
Therriault, Hanley
OPPOSED: Grussendorf, Davies
Representatives Moses and Davis were absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-2).
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to adopt Amendment 2 (copy
on file). Representative Kelly OBJECTED. Amendment 2 would
provide an exemption for minors that do not reside in a
community were abortions are available. Representative
Grussendorf observed that children are more likely to delay
medical attention.
Dr. Nakamura clarified that there are three communities that
perform abortions in Alaska.
Representative Grussendorf noted that the cost of travel can
be substantial.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
2.
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Davies
OPPOSED: Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder,
Therriault, Hanley
Representatives Moses and Davis were absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-7).
Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CSSB 24 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Grussendorf
OBJECTED. He expressed concern with the adoption of
Amendment 1.
Representative Davies spoke against the legislation. He
stressed that the legislation will not make dysfunctional
families less dysfunctional. He maintained that the
legislation will delay medical care and increase health
risks. He spoke in support of adequate funding for the
Healthy Families Initiative and the COMPASS program. He
emphasized that drug and alcohol abuse are implicated in a
majority of cases where minors do not communicate with their
parents. He maintained that there needs to be discussion on
quality day care, integration of programs between health
providers and the school system, and reducing the effects of
drug and alcohol abuse.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to pass HCS CSSB 24
9
(FIN) from Committee.
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin,
Mulder, Therriault, Hanley
OPPOSED: Davies
Representatives Davis and Moses were absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-2).
HCS CSSB 24 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with three zero fiscal notes, one
by the Department of Administration, 2/3/97, one by the
Department of Health & Social Services, dated 2/3/97, and
one by the Department of Health & Social Services, dated
3/5/97; and with two fiscal impact notes, one by the
Department of Administration, 3/21/97, and one by the Alaska
Court System, dated 3/14/97.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|