Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/10/2008 06:00 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB364 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 364 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 364
"An Act relating to notice and consent for a minor's
abortion; relating to penalties for performing an
abortion; relating to a judicial bypass procedure for
an abortion; relating to coercion of a minor to have an
abortion; relating to reporting of abortions performed
on minors; amending Rule 24(a), Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, amending Rule 220, Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure, and Rule 20, Alaska Probate Rules, relating
to judicial bypass for an abortion; and providing for
an effective date."
6:10:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, introduced HB 364 as
the culmination of a ten-year debate in the courts. The
Parental Consent Act (PCA) was legislated in 1997. That same
year and again in 2007, the Alaska Supreme Court determined
that the PCA was unconstitutional because the right to
privacy extended to minors.
Representative Coghill reminded the Committee that the issue
of the bill is not abortion but the role of parents in the
decision of a minor to have an abortion. He read from the
Sponsor Statement: "HB 364 enacts the notification process
that the Court determined is the least restrictive means"
(Copy on File).
Representative Coghill pointed out that the current bill
leaves intact the four exemptions from parental consent:
"Married minors, minors who have been legally emancipated,
minors who have entered the armed services of the United
States, and minors who have become employed and self-
subsisting." The bill allows three responses:
1. The parent is involved in the decision whether to have
the abortion.
2. The minor by-passes the parental notification and
consent process through showing good reason.
3. If the minor is physically or sexually abused or has a
history of emotional abuse, there are provisions so
that the minor can proceed without parental
notification and consent.
6:14:33 PM
Representative Coghill asserted that the parent should be
involved in the decision unless there is a compelling reason
for them not to be involved.
Representative Coghill explained the details of the bill
("Sectional for Version 'E'," Copy on File), including:
· Sec. 1. Adds a notice requirement to the consent
requirement.
· Sec. 2. Shifts the burden of proof for prosecution of
a physician who performs an abortion.
· Sec. 3. Specifies conditions under which a doctor can
perform an abortion: parental consent, court order
waiving notification and consent (judicial bypass),
constructive consent, and bypass of the judicial
bypass.
· Secs. 4 & 5. Adds notice to process for filing for
judicial bypass.
· Sec. 8. Provides for a minor requesting a judicial
bypass.
· Sec. 9. A new section prohibiting a parent or other
person from coercing a pregnant minor to have an
abortion.
6:22:10 PM
Representative Coghill stressed that the Legislature needs
to intercede. He said the courts have struck down the PCA,
which means parents have an absolute barrier if a child
chooses not to involve the parent in the decision to have an
abortion. Parents have had the right to intercede in all
other medical procedures. He acknowledged that there are
parents who treat girls poorly and said the bill has allowed
for that. The courts have said that the fundamental right of
the parent is balanced against the fundamental right of the
child. The bill is an attempt to set the balance right in
the direction of parents' rights by using some of the
courts' own logic.
Representative Coghill stated that he believed the default
position in Alaska should be that parents be involved in the
decision.
6:25:36 PM
Co-Chair Meyer opened for questions to the Sponsor.
Representative Gara searched for common ground with the
Sponsor. They both wanted to limit abortions as much as
possible. He voiced concerns about telling a child that they
have to get consent from an abusive parent.
Representative Gara stated that he did not like the judicial
bypass because he does not want a child to have to prove
abuse to the court. He prefers the alternative of the
affidavit. He maintained that a child who fears an abusive
parent will not go to court. He wanted the bill to specify
that the child does not need consent from anyone if the
minor signs an affidavit, under penalties of perjury, that
they genuinely fear abuse. He had trouble with the child
having to get another person to sign.
6:28:59 PM
Representative Coghill replied that there are safety nets in
the system for a young person caught in a pattern of abuse.
He thought the bill broadened the safety net by including
parents. He argued that abortion is a big decision. He
wanted to be sure there was trustworthy support for the
child. He thought an affidavit was absolutely necessary.
Representative Gara responded that the child should be
protected without delaying the abortion until the second
trimester. He said if the Sponsor wants to protect the
child, the bill could say that the child gets the right to
choose at the point when she files the affidavit with the
doctor. The doctor would have to report the abuse and the
child would be protected that way. Representative Coghill
said that if there is abuse, he wants it reported. He agreed
a doctor could make notification of abuse.
6:32:19 PM
Representative Gara restated his desire to find common
ground. He revisited the steps a child could take. He said
the problem with the bill as written is the child cannot get
her affidavit accepted without another adult signature. Too
much time has passed. Once the child states under penalties
of perjury that they are in danger, he thought that should
be enough.
Representative Coghill thought there might not have to be a
time problem. He imagined a scenario where a child could get
immediate help. He reminded the Committee than an
emancipated minor is already able to make the decision. The
child who is not emancipated needs help anyway. However, if
it is just between the child and the doctor, he was
concerned that doctors might not do the right thing.
Vice-Chair Stoltze observed the common ground is recognizing
the youth of the minor and the shared desire to protect the
child. He wondered how much Representative Coghill has
compromised on HB 364 already and how much further he would
be able to compromise.
6:36:10 PM
Representative Coghill responded that there were things he
would prefer not to have in the bill, but the courts'
rulings affect the situation. He has difficulty with minor's
ability to go ahead with the abortion when the courts do not
take action. He hoped that those who helped young girls
would be reasonable. He reiterated his strong belief that
the courts missed the balance in excluding parents.
Representative Kelly queried as to the youngest age a child
could have to make the decision. Representative Coghill
thought that would be whatever age the child was able to
conceive.
6:39:42 PM
Co-Chair Chenault opened public testimony.
KIM M. BOIDIKER, FAIRBANKS (Testified via teleconference),
spoke in support of HB 364. She relayed a personal story.
She thought it important for parents to be involved in their
child's decision to have an abortion.
HEATHER ANDRULLI (Testified via teleconference), (Statement
read by another testifier) spoke in support of HB 364. She
described her family and told a story of her daughter's
involvement with a man over the internet. She thought having
the law on their side enabled the parents to help their
daughter. She related stories involving abortion providers
and Planned Parenthood. She thought only parents should have
the right to provide guidance for minor daughters.
ANNIE DOUGHERTY, FAIRBANKS (Testified via teleconference),
spoke in support of HB 364. She felt the bill is written to
protect girls.
6:47:37 PM
Representative Gara pointed out that there is no evidence
that Planned Parenthood did the things testifiers had
accused them of doing.
Co-Chair Chenault asked testifiers to stick to the issue and
not make accusations.
JASON SOIGERS, FAIRBNAKS (Testified via teleconference),
testified in support of HB 364. He described the dangers of
abortion. He would be outraged if his daughter made the
decision on her own. He referred to women who are now coming
forward to say how wounded they are from the procedure.
6:50:15 PM
RACHELLE RENNER, FAIRBANKS (Testified via teleconference),
spoke in support of HB 364. She listed the things a young
person has to get permission to do and thought they should
not be able to have an abortion without permission.
6:50:48 PM
MARK RENNER, FAIRBANKS (Testified via teleconference),
testified in favor of HB 364. He talked about his children
and worried children would take advantage of the loopholes
in the bill.
CLOVER SIMON, CEO, PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE
(Testified via teleconference), spoke in opposition to HB
364. She pointed out that all providers and staff at Planned
Parent are mandated reporters. She said permission is
required in schools for children to take medicine for
insurance and liability reasons. Planned Parenthood's
experience is that parents are already involved in the
decisions of young people; teens come into the clinics with
their parents. Addressing the fiscal notes, she wondered who
would pay for the costs of the judicial bypass and other
expenses. She stated concerns about the mandated reporters.
The process can take weeks, delaying the teen from getting
the medical care she needs. She pointed out that a similar
law was recently struck down by the Supreme Court. She said
abortion is about ten times safer for teens than giving
birth.
6:57:36 PM
Representative Gara said that one of the reasons the Supreme
Court struck the previous statute down was the time issue
between when a minor notices she's pregnant and when the
first trimester ends. He wondered if Planned Parenthood had
information on when a young woman notices pregnancy. Ms.
Simon replied that in general teens delay getting an
abortion until the tenth or eleventh week, which leaves only
two weeks in the first tri-semester. Representative Gara
asked how long the bypass and appeal process would take. Ms.
Simon responded that the process would take eleven working
days, without the bypass. If the young woman had been
sexually assaulted, the bypass to the bypass would take
longer. Her experience has been that the process is lengthy.
Representative Gara reiterated his concerns about additional
delays. He asked if a person could get an elective abortion
in Alaska after the first trimester. Ms. Simon said there
are no providers for second trimester elective abortion in
Alaska.
7:00:35 PM
BRITTANY GOODNIGHT, PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER, PLANNED
PARENTHOOD OF ALASKA (Testified via teleconference), spoke
in opposition of HB 364. She described her good relationship
with her parents, but she could not talk to her parents
about everything. She thought the bill would create almost
insurmountable obstacles and dangerous delays for girls
afraid to report. She urged the Legislature to fund the
safety net that teens need to have real choices to have
children: medical care, after-school and recreation
programs, child care and educational opportunities for young
mothers.
7:06:26 PM
GREG SCHMIDT, BOARD, ALASKA FAMILY COUNCIL (Testified via
teleconference), spoke in support HB 364. He does not like
outside entities involved in such intimate decisions. He
worried that the choice to abort could cause many years of
trauma.
7:08:30 PM
ROBIN SMITH, ANCHORAGE (Testified via teleconference), spoke
in opposition of HB 364. She spoke to abortion complications
for young girls who are afraid to get help. She related a
personal story and encouraged that each young girl determine
what the correct medical treatment should be. She pleaded
that dollars be placed into prevention and sex education for
teens.
7:15:27 PM
KARLA UTTER, ANCHORAGE (Testified via teleconference), spoke
in favor of HB 364. She echoed comments made by Ms. Simon
and Ms. Goodnight.
KATHLEEN GUSTAFSON, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FAMILY
PLANNING CLINIC, HOMER (Testified via teleconference),
testified in strong opposition to HB 364. She stated that
abortion is a legal procedure for anyone old enough to
become pregnant. Respect and trust between a parent and
child cannot be legislated.
7:18:18 PM
ANNE LINDSLEY, HAINES, (CURRENTLY A STUDENT IN PORTLAND,
OREGON) (Testified via teleconference), spoke in support of
HB 364. She noted that she is 18 years old and wanted her
peers to have access to safe health care. The goal of the
legislation is noble, but it approaches the intent in the
wrong way. Some youth do not live in safe homes. She
thought abortion is a personal decision. The court process
is too lengthy for a young woman to consider all options and
could result in dangerous behavior. If the State wants to
reduce the number of abortions, it should implement a more
thorough sex education program. Parents should not have the
right to make decisions that will affect the rest of their
daughters' lives.
7:22:17 PM
JIM MINNEREY, PRESIDENT, ALASKA FAMILY COUNCIL, JUNEAU
(Testified via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. He spoke to the need for parental consent for a
wide range of activities and procedures. He referred to a
Massachusetts study of young people who had pursued the
judicial by-pass, which found that half had positive
relationships with their parents. Only a small portion of
those in the study had fear of some kind of parental harm if
they told their parents. He thought the issue is the fear
of restrictions in the pro-choice group. He reviewed
examples of courts and doctors supporting parental consent.
PAMELA SAMASH, JUNEAU (Testified via teleconference), spoke
in support of HB 364. She has a teenage daughter. Her
religious beliefs affect her stance. She related a personal
story. She thought girls needed their parents most when they
had to make such a difficult decision.
DEBBIE JOSLIN, EAGLE FORUM ALASKA, DELTA JUNCTION (Testified
via teleconference), spoke in support of HB 364. She stated
her personal beliefs regarding abortion. She thought
parents' right to raise their children is sacred.
CATHY COTTON, DELTA JUNCTION (Testified via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She thought it made common
sense for parents to be involved in the decision.
JANET CREPPS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LEGAL CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE
RIGHTS (Testified via teleconference), spoke in opposition
to HB 364. She litigated the case regarding the PCA from its
inception in 1997, including arguing the case twice before
the Alaska Supreme Court. She had two points about HB 364.
First, the proposal is clearly unconstitutional. The Court's
decision is binding precedence and the Legislature should
recognize and apply that when considering parental
involvement requirements. House Bill 364 not only fails to
meet the standard laid out by the Supreme Court, but seeks
to impose even harsher and more onerous burdens than the law
that was struck down. The addition of the so-called abuse
exception and changes to the by-pass do not fix the
fundamental flaw that parental consent is unconstitutional.
If enacted the law would be one of the harshest parental
involvement laws in the country. The notice provision is
burdensome and requires minors and their parents to undergo
multiple steps. In most states that require notice and a
waiting period before a minor can obtain an abortion, the
waiting period can be waived if the parent consents to the
procedure, which is not the case in HB 364.
Ms. Crepps outlined her second point. The bill, if passed as
written, will be subject to a legal challenge and found
unconstitutional and the State will have to foot the bill
for unnecessary and expensive litigation.
7:42:10 PM
Representative Gara asked for details of the costs resulting
from the last parental consent statute. Ms. Crepps confirmed
that the cost of state legal counsel was $790,000. In
addition, the State hired a private law firm for
approximately $300,000, which does not include the
additional costs that were incurred by the Fairbanks
District Attorney's office, which also represented the State
in the case. Representative Gara wanted to hear from the
State's attorneys regarding the totals for that litigation.
Representative Gara also wanted to know how much public
representation cost in states where parental consult has
been upheld for a child who goes to court. Ms. Crepps
replied that most of the states are not tracking the costs
of public advocates. She explained that states with judicial
bypass, which are the states not only with parental consent
but parental notice, uniformly provide appointed
representation, the costs of which are borne by the public.
Representative Gara stated that HB 364 is very similar to
the statute struck down by the Supreme Court and he advised
that it would happen again. He thought the cost issues are
important and wanted to hear from the Department of Labor
and the Public Defenders regarding potential costs.
Co-Chair Chenault referred to a note from the courts and the
Department of Law.
Representative Gara pointed out that costs to the State from
defending young women should also be pursued.
Co-Chair Chenault answered that all departments would be
asked for fiscal notes pertaining to the bill.
7:45:48 PM
Representative Kelly grilled Ms. Crepps regarding her
parental status and beliefs about abortion. Ms. Crepps
thought the question was irrelevant. Representative Kelly
asked her about her beliefs regarding parental consent. Ms.
Crepps replied that she thought a minor had the right to
make life-altering decisions.
7:48:17 PM
Representative Gara turned to page 7 of the bill, regarding
coercion of a minor to have an abortion through force,
threat of force, deprivation of food, support, or shelter.
He asked if it was then all right to do the same thing to
require the minor to deliver a pregnancy to term. Ms. Crepps
replied that no minor should be coerced by her parents to
make life-altering decisions either way. As a matter of law,
this raises equal protection concerns regarding treating
minors who make a decision to carry to term differently than
minors who decide to terminate a pregnancy.
Representative Gara referred to the provision requiring the
48-hour waiting period and discussion in the Supreme Court
case regarding the collapsing time period between when a
young woman is aware of pregnancy and when the bypass
proceeding is complete. Ms. Crepps thought the built-in
delay would give the courts concern.
7:52:13 PM
LAUREN BRETZ, ALASKA FAMILY COUNCIL (Testified via
teleconference), spoke in support of HB 364. She thought it
should be obvious that children need parents involved in
their lives. She referred to the movie "Juno," which depicts
a young woman involving her parents in her decision to carry
a child to term.
KATE LINDSLEY, HAINES (Testified via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to HB 364. She is 16 years old and feels the
bill is relevant to both herself and her friends. She
thought the court is not being practical in its assumptions.
The bill is not applicable to all girls. She can talk to her
mother, but not everyone can. Good communication cannot be
mandated by the State. Parents should not have the right to
compel a child to have a child any more than they should not
be able to compel them to have an abortion. She introduced
her mother, Michelle Tarrott, who had also come to testify.
MICHELLE TARROTT, HAINES (Testified via teleconference),
vehemently opposed the bill. She said her two teen daughters
motivated her to testify. She believes the issues addressed
by HB 364 are highly personal and does not want the
government mandating that her children talk to her. The
State needs better sex education and clinics, not more
restrictions.
WAYNE HUNTER, RIGHT TO LIFE (Testified via teleconference),
spoke in favor of HB 364 and thought it represented the will
of the people of Alaska. He thought the after-affects of
abortion was harder on teen girls than grown women.
Involving parents in the process can increase the chances of
a youngster making a truly informed decision.
8:06:20 PM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED.
Co-Chair Meyer stated that the intent was not to take action
on the bill but to take testimony. He referred to possible
amendments. He asked if there were additional questions for
the Sponsor.
Representative Gara referred to page 2, line 29, which zones
in on his biggest concerns. Currently a person does not have
to get a judicial bypass if a doctor determines that a delay
will cause a serious risk of substantial and irreversible
impairment. That has been changed in HB 364 to add "medical
instability caused by a" substantial and irreversible
impairment.
Representative Coghill responded that (g) under Sec. 2 gives
the physician a rebuttable defense for these reasons: life,
health, and medical emergency. The section Representative
Gara referred to is under the definition of medical
emergency. He said the intent is to define what a medical
emergency is and whether the young girl is medically stable
or if it would create instability.
8:09:45 PM
Representative Gara said his concern was that the definition
could be interpreted to mean having to prove medical
instability. He did not want to insert a standard beyond
substantial and irreversible impairment. Representative
Coghill responded that the bill is trying to define whether
an emergency exists. Representative Gara proposed that a
delay would cause the emergency. Representative Coghill
replied that the standard is good faith and medical
judgment.
8:11:33 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked that the amendments be submitted by
Wednesday evening.
HB 364 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|