Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/17/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB417 || HB417 | |
| HB348 || HB348 | |
| HB364 || HB364 | |
| HB236 | |
| HB406 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 236 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 406 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 364 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 348 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 417 | 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.
2:47:56 PM
Co-Chair Meyer reviewed the history of HB 364 in the Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1 (Copy on File):
Page 6, line 7: After "without", Insert "Notice to
or"
Representative Hawker OBJECTED for discussion.
SUZANNE ARMSTRONG, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CO-CHAIR MEYER,
explained the Amendment as a technical clean-up amendment
that inserts language to make the version of the bill
consistent with other draftings.
Representative Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Sponsor, testified that he had
no objection to the Amendment.
Vice-Chair Stoltze removed his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2 (25-
LS1406\E.1, Mischel, 3/12/08, Copy on File):
Page 2, line 29: Delete "medical instability
caused by a"
Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
2:50:08 PM
Representative Gara turned to page 2, line 29 of the bill.
He explained that the previous consent law stipulates that a
person does not have to wait and get parental notice and
consent if the delay in the abortion will cause the minor
"substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily
function." He thought the rule seemed reasonable. However,
HB 364 adds another condition that the abortion can only be
performed if the delay will cause "medical instability"
caused by an irreversible impairment. Representative Gara
objected to the additional language and wanted it removed
through the Amendment.
Representative Coghill objected to the Amendment. He pointed
out that the language "medical instability" is commonly used
in medical emergencies. He defines abortion as a medical
emergency. The medical emergency is being determined by the
doctor. He thought "medical stability" should be a factor.
Representative Gara answered that not allowing an abortion
could cause lasting and substantial injury to a woman. He
thought the current standard was good enough. An abortion
should be allowed if prevention of the abortion would cause
a woman substantial and irreversible injury. The question
becomes whether the additional language addresses this kind
of injury.
Representative Coghill answered that the fact that a delay
could cause a medical instability is appropriate especially
when we rely on the good faith clinical judgment of the
doctor.
Representative Gara did not like adopting medical terms
without knowing what they mean. He wanted medical testimony
to show which injuries the bill allows to be caused to a
woman and which injuries are not.
2:54:11 PM
Representative Coghill said the same amendment had come
before another committee. There was legal testimony but none
from a doctor. He clarified that the sponsors intend to
define, for the purposes of this particular law, what a
medical emergency is. He had not intended to line up medical
testimony, although he could. Co-Chair Meyer did not think
additional testimony was necessary.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Joule, Nelson
OPPOSED: Harris, Hawker, Kelly, Stoltze, Thomas, Meyer
Absent from the vote: Crawford, Chenault
The MOTION FAILED (3/6).
2:56:23 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3 (25-
LS1406\E.2, Mischel, 3/12/08, Copy on File):
Page 3, line 6: Delete "not less than 48 hours"
Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara turned to page 3, line 6 of the bill.
The way the bill is written, if a young woman gives the
parents notice and gets parental consent to have an
abortion, she still cannot have an abortion without a 48-
hour wait. He thought it was not appropriate to have to wait
48 hours. There is no other major medical procedure where a
mandatory wait applies. He referred to earlier testimony
that it sometimes takes up to ten weeks for a young woman to
find out she is pregnant. By then the first trimester is
nearly over, and there is no place to get a second-trimester
abortion in Alaska. He described a scenario of a young woman
trying to make the decisions who has to go to the court, the
doctor's office and so on. Even after all that, she has to
wait another 48 hours. This tells women who have the legal
right to have an abortion that they are not allowed to have
one because of a deadline. He asserted that the bill would
be deemed unconstitutional and that it was not right.
Representative Coghill spoke against the Amendment. He
thought two days' notification to the minor's custodian was
reasonable. He wanted to have notice in case a person was
trying to manipulate the system. If the words were taken
out, the bill would say "notice before the abortion," which
could be minutes. For other medical procedures there would
be a variety of different times either for preparation or
for time to get to or from the appointment. He described
surgeries that he had to wait 72 hours for.
Representative Gara maintained that there is no similar law
for men. House Bill 364 will tell a woman that, unlike a
man, after a certain day, she cannot have the surgery. Men
have the luxury of waiting a few extra days that women who
are seeking an abortion do not have. In addition, the bill
requires consent. If she has the consent of the parent, she
should not have to wait another 48 hours.
Representative Coghill did not know of any other place in
society that jurisprudence has been so highly focused as
abortion and parental consent. With regards to other
procedures, few have been litigated to the same degree. Some
value individual freedom highly, and others value the unborn
child highly. Those two values are in tension. He believed
there should be reasonable notification. He thought doctors
would require at least two days of preparatory work anyway.
3:02:38 PM
Representative Kelly asked if Representative Coghill had
started with a higher number of hours for notification.
Representative Coghill relied that he had started with 72
hours; after visiting abortion clinics he became convinced
that two days was adequate. Representative Kelly spoke to
the risk of terminating a human being and thought a 48 hours
wait was reasonable. He would like the waiting period to be
longer.
Representative Gara queried if there were any procedure
where a man is required to wait 48 hours after giving
consent. Representative Coghill replied not by law.
3:04:22 PM
Representative Gara asserted that he had an equal protection
issue with the bill if men are not required to wait 48 hours
before having any kind of surgery.
Representative Coghill did not know of any male who had
gotten an abortion. He felt men had been excluded from the
choice of abortion. The equal protection issue for him is
with the father of the unborn child.
Representative Gara thought the 48-hour issue would divide
people into people who were against abortion and people who
were for the choice to have an abortion. The 48-hour notice
is not medically justified. It divides people. He argued
that the real purpose of the 48-hour waiting period was to
decrease the chances of a woman having a valid, legal,
first-trimester abortion. There is no other area of the law
where this happens. That makes this bill not really about
parental consent, but parental consent plus taking another
shot at trying to prevent someone from getting an abortion.
3:07:08 PM
Representative Coghill replied that the provision was not
meant to be prohibitive, but to respect the parental right
to be involved in the decision. He stated that men are
parents as well as women.
Representative Kelly speculated that a having vasectomy
requires a cooling off period. During that period a person
might get counseling in order to carefully think things
through. He felt since the decision to have an abortion
involved human life, the waiting period should be much
longer. He referred to testimony that abortion providers
make sure there is counseling so the person has to face what
an abortion is.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Joule, Nelson
OPPOSED: Hawker, Kelly, Stoltz, Thomas, Harris
Absent for the vote: Chenault, Crawford
The MOTION FAILED (3/6).
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #4 (25-
LS1406\E.3, Mischel, 3/13/08, Copy on File):
Page 3, line 15, following "victim": Insert "or has
a reasonable fear of becoming a victim"; Page 3,
line 18, following "by": Insert "the minor."; Page
3, lines 19-28: Delete all material.
Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
3:10:09 PM
Representative Gara described the Amendment as an attempt to
address one of his major objections to the bill. He thought
it was one thing telling a minor with supportive parents
that she needs to talk to them before having an abortion. It
was another thing to tell a minor who has been sexually or
physically abused that she has to tell the parent that she
is pregnant and get permission to have an abortion. The
Amendment says that if a minor has reasonable fear of
physical or sexual abuse, or if they have been physically or
sexually abused in the past by a parent, they simply do not
have to get parental consent. The way the bill reads
currently, the child has to get an affidavit where the child
says she will be abused, and then she has to get a witness.
Representative Gara was concerned that the witness would go
to the parent and inform the parent that the daughter is
about to get an abortion. If the girl goes to a family
member, the family member may inform the parent. If she
turns to a law enforcement officer, that officer might go to
the parent.
Representative Gara explained that his provision makes it
sufficient for the child to sign an affidavit, under
penalties of perjury, and give it to the doctor. A parent
who has abused a child has lost the right to regulate that
child's life.
Representative Coghill agreed that when a young girl is
abused, she is afraid; pregnancy intensifies that fear. He
explained the section as the third condition under which a
doctor may perform an abortion for a minor. The others are
parental consent and emancipation. If the child is abused,
she is not required to go to court. The doctor can make the
decision, but Representative Coghill did not want the doctor
to be able to do that. He thought it would be wise to have
an authority figure involved. He acknowledged that the
abusive parent could find out because of that. He would
rather have law enforcement, health and social services, or
a safe family member involved. He does not want to delete
the material and leave the decision between the doctor and
the minor child because of doctors who could fall prey to
the motive of making money off the abortion.
3:16:26 PM
Representative Gara did not think there were doctors making
a profit providing abortions. He clarified that under the
Amendment, the decision is not only between the young woman
and her doctor. The young woman is also required to sign an
affidavit or she could go to jail for lying. He thought that
was sufficient protection.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Joule, Nelson, Gara
OPPOSED: Hawker, Kelly, Stoltze, Thomas, Harris, Meyer
Absent from the Vote: Crawford, Chenault
The MOTION FAILED (3/6).
3:18:46 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #5 (25-
LS1406\E.4, Mischel 3/12/08, Copy on File):
Page 7, line 25, following "abortion": Insert "or
to bear a child"; Page 7, line 28, following
"abortion": Insert "or to bear a child"
Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara turned to page 7, line 24 which he felt
creates a new crime: coercing a minor who is pregnant to
have an abortion. He thought it should be a crime to coerce,
defined in the bill as "to restrain or dominate a minor by
force," a minor to have an abortion, but it should also be a
crime to restrain or dominate a minor by force to make them
bear a child. He thought coercing a child would be wrong
regardless of the stance towards abortion.
Representative Coghill turned to section 1 of the bill,
subsection (a), which lists the exceptions to "an abortion
may not be performed in this state." He pointed out that the
topic at hand is whether parents should be involved in the
consent for an abortion. The topic is abortion. He spoke
against the Amendment, not because he thinks a child should
be coerced to have a child, but because it would create a
precedence in law that concerns him.
3:21:56 PM
Representative Gara thought the bill as written would cause
legal problems. He thought it made it all right to threaten
a child if she doesn't agree to have a baby. The bill treats
people different depending on what side of the pro-life/pro-
choice issue they are on.
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment #5.
Co-Chair Meyer referred to fiscal notes.
AT EASE: 3:24:24 PM
RECONVENE: 3:26:10 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT HB 364 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal
note #1 by the Department of Health and Social Services, new
zero fiscal note by the Department of Administration, new
indeterminate fiscal note by the Department of Law, and new
zero fiscal note by the Alaska Court System.
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
3:26:57 PM
Representative Gara referred to a memo from the Department
of Law concluding that HB 364 is likely unconstitutional.
The bill is probably more restrictive than the one that was
already deemed unconstitutional. He thought the zero fiscal
note from the Department of Law curious, since the last
litigation cost over $1 million. He thought the fiscal note
should reflect the cost of a probable fight over the
constitutionality of the bill. He pointed out that there
should also be a fiscal note from the Public Defender or
Office of Public Advocacy, since they would have to
represent women connected with the judicial by-pass
proceeding. The Department of Law should have another fiscal
note over the costs of defending the other side of the by-
pass issue.
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Kelly OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Kelly referred to the memo from the
Department of Law. He interpreted the memo as stating that
notification would likely survive, and the outcome regarding
the constitutionality of required consent would be dubious.
The memo goes on to state that the recent change in the
composition of the court could have a bearing on the issues
(Copy on File).
3:29:27 PM
Representative Kelly REMOVED his OBJECTION.
Representative Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Gara reiterated that whatever the result of
litigation, it would cost a lot of money. He maintained the
Committee should have true fiscal notes from departments and
that the current fiscal notes were not true.
Representative Gara REMOVED his OBJECTION.
CS HB 364 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note #1
by the Department of Health and Social Services, new zero
fiscal note by the Department of Administration, new
indeterminate fiscal note by the Department of Law, and new
zero fiscal note by the Alaska Court System.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|