Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/07/1997 01:08 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 37 - PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION Number 2333 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that members would continue discussion on HB 37, "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." He added that public testimony was closed at the last meeting, and deliberation would begin among committee members. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that a gentleman 80 years old had called into the committee from the Mat-Su Valley during the previous meeting. The individual had expressed to members that he had been a republican all his life. Representative Berkowitz wondered where the republicans were who were opposing governmental regulation of people's lives. He pointed out that if there was no government, there would be no reason for young women to have parental notification. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that what HB 37 did was impose an additional requirement on young women to have the government interfere with their lives, which to him was a troubling step to take. He noted that he had also asked a question of the sponsor regarding a young woman who wanted to have the child, but her parents wanted her to get an abortion. The response from the sponsor was that it would amount to some form of coercion. Representative Berkowitz felt that explanation would also apply to the circumstance the sponsor was trying to prevent. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ read into the record AS 11.41.530. "A person commits the crime of coercion if the person compels another to engage in conduct from which there is a legal right to abstain or abstain from conduct in which there is a legal right to engage." Representative Berkowitz advised members that what was being done under HB 37 was coercing young women to engage in conduct with their parents which they would not otherwise have to do. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that women had the right to chose whether or not to have an abortion. If the legislature says that women under the age 18 do not have that right, that it was a form of coercion. He advised members they were making people give up rights, and not giving anything in return. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that, in his mind, there had been a somewhat disingenuous analogy that HB 37 was not about abortion, but about parental rights. Representative Berkowitz expressed that another person who testified from the Mat-Su Valley indicated that the proposed legislation was the first step to banning all abortions. He stated that for members to sit there and intellectualize that the bill addressed parental notification and parental rights, he felt forgets what the whole foundation of the American system of jurisprudence and the constitution stood for, which was individual rights. Representative Berkowitz stated that if individuals chose to expand and form family units, that was their prerogative, but it was absolutely not within the government's purview to tell people how to behave with other individuals. TAPE 97-32, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that young women would chose to have abortions regardless of the notification. And the consequence, based on testimony he had heard, was that young women would die. Representative Berkowitz stated that it was a decision members would have to make, but those were the reasons he would oppose HB 37. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he understood that those who were supportive of the bill were doing so with the best intention, but advised members there was a cost in supporting it to the strength of the state's constitutional guarantees to the right to privacy, and the right to have an abortion if a woman chose to do so. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ also thought it sent a very peculiar message, given other pieces of legislation that had passed through the House Judiciary Committee, such as juveniles who engage in criminal conduct would be held to adult standards. HB 37 was saying that juveniles who engage in adult conduct, by getting pregnant, would not be entrusted with adult rights and responsibilities. Representative Berkowitz went on to state that after a child is born to a juvenile, that juvenile is charged with taking care of the infant and had full medical control over that baby. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed that HB 37 was so full of internal contradictions, from a policy and constitutional perspective, that it baffled him why it was even before the committee. He advised members that he was a strong supporter of families and a strong supporter of individual rights, but the issue at hand was taking them down a road where they should not be going, because it produced more government, and less personal freedom. CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed that Representative Berkowitz made a very compelling argument; however, he would attempt to counter it by pointing out that it was legal for a young girl to go to an R-rated movie, would be legal for her to take an overdose of aspirin or sleeping pills. He pointed out that it was even legal for a young woman to physically incur pain on herself, and legal for her to take her own life. Chairman Green advised members that his point was that there were rights that a person should, and certainly could, impose on the rearing of their children. CHAIRMAN GREEN felt that the reference Representative Berkowitz made about coercion that it seemed to him there were special situations between parents and children that supersede coercion. He stated that every time there was a difference of opinion between a child and a parent, that in each case the parent would be exercising coercion on the child because the parent would prevail. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that he was not the one who initially suggested coercion played into the question. It was through testimony from a woman in Chicago, as well as the sponsor of the bill. He clarified that he had asked the question regarding what would happen if a young woman wanted to have the child and her parents wanted her to have an abortion. The response he got was that it would constitute coercion. Representative Berkowitz explained that what he was saying was that the flip side of that coin also constituted coercion. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that that was an opinion, rather than a legal argument from the sponsor of HB 37. Number 176 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded to testimony provided by Representative Berkowitz. She stated that to her, HB 37 was a parents' rights issue. Representative James expressed that if there was no government interfering with family rights today, they would not be arguing about that point. She pointed out that there were so many ways the government had gotten into the family rights that parents had been disavowed of any ability to raise their children the way they want. Part of that began with the federal rule when they required doctors and teachers to report suspected child abuse and child neglect if suspicion existed. Representative James stated that government had the same responsibility to protect children because they were minors and not able to make certain decisions. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members she was passionate about the issue of parental rights, and to her, it had nothing to do with abortion. She claimed that HB 37 was the first step that she was going to try to take, in the next few years, to see to it that parents get their rights back. Representative James stated that minors were minors until they were determined to not be minors, and while they are minors, they are under the control and responsibility of their parents. Representative James stated with respect to the juvenile issues where they wanted to make the parents responsible for juvenile acts, that they could not make the parent responsible unless the parent is given the ability to discipline their children. Number 364 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed that he did not mean to convey that his sole concern was to protect abortion rights. He stated that abortion rights, to him, were just one aspect of individual rights and the right to privacy. Representative Berkowitz stated that if they allow government to wage any kind of attack on individual or personal rights, it would erode the very freedoms that most in Alaska hold very dear; so dear, that Alaska was one of the very few states in the country to enshrine in the State's Constitution, the right to privacy. He felt that anytime you take a step away from those rights that it was to the detriment of all Alaskans. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER felt the issue at hand was one that most came to the table with preconditioned feelings because it was an issue that was hard to run for office and not have a lot of folks talk to you about how you felt about things. It was because of this that he wanted to make sure that he was understood that his vote for the proposed legislation was not a vote for pro-life or abortion. Representative Porter stated that it was a parental rights situation based on all of the legislation and philosophical change that he felt the past two legislatures had tried to bring about by allowing parents to have the authority to be responsible for their children. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he could not recall any mention of the types of issues that HB 37 dealt with when voting on the constitutional amendment for privacy. He did recall a lot of discussion on the concern of the computer era of being able to amass volumes of information on people, and that individual rights needed to be protected from computer invasion. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that there was case law in abundance that upheld the public policy to implement restrictions of what otherwise might be rights or privileges of adults on juveniles, at different ages for different things. He would not think that the Supreme Court would consider HB 37 as an exception to a reasonable determination of public policy. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that the reason he was pro- choice was that during the first few years he was in law enforcement, abortion was a crime in the state of Alaska. He expressed that he had had the unfortunate duty to respond and clean up after a good number of illegal abortions. Representative Porter explained that he had talked to families and individuals who had attempted to abort themselves, and when the law changed, he was pleased that he would not have to continue to make those kinds of responses. Representative Porter expressed that if he thought for a moment that HB 37 would get back to that, he would not support it. Number 586 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated with regard to whether the bill was about parental rights or abortion, that during previous testimony, Representative Bunde stated, "So in other words, you want complete control of your kids except if they want an abortion." Representative Croft pointed out that this was what HB 37 did, it provided control to tell the child they could not. He felt Representative Bunde's statement summarized the bill very well, and brought back what the proposed legislation was about. "It's about abortion." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT expressed that he did not have children, but stated that if he did have a daughter, and when he does, he would hope she would come to him if she found herself in a situation of being pregnant. The question was whether he wanted to give her no other choice, to force a decision, or simply do all he could as a parent. Representative Croft stated that he was not ready to say it was her only choice, short of going before a judge. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that he asked a number of the witnesses who testified whether there were any situations where they would allow their child to have an abortion. The uniform answer he received was, "under no circumstance", one response was "over my dead body", or "not as long as I'm alive". He had no reason to doubt that those people were good parents, but there was an example, to him, of good parents that leave no legitimate option for a child. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that, unfortunately, there were people who were extremely poor parents where physical and sexual abuse occurred and the bill could very well require a young woman to go to the source of her abuse and ask for permission. Representative Croft stated that he was not willing to do any of that. He stated that while he did not yet have children, and if he ever did, he would try and raise them so they could come to him, but he would not limit them to only one option. Number 1106 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that the skill in dialogue, by both Representatives Croft and Berkowitz was obvious, but he asked Representative Croft, that if HB 37 created an invasion of privacy, and on occasion young women had died from improper abortions, that women had died from proper abortions also, and young women had died from child birth. Chairman Green stated that the fact remained that parents had lost what they enjoyed with regard to parental rights in the past. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE advised members that he was a parent, and did have a daughter. He stated that he would not support the proposed legislation at all without the judicial bypass provision, because not all parents are good parents. Representative Bunde stated that as a parent, and as a pro-choice person, he felt they undermined people's ability to choose by allowing, or encouraging minors to get involved in an invasive surgical procedure without some adult consent, advisement or involvement. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ felt that if they were framing the debate in terms of parental rights, there should have been a better bill to discuss that issue, other than the one before the committee. He pointed out that abortion was a contentious issue, and if there was a genuine concern about erosion of parental rights, a bill should be put forward that specifically addressed that topic. Representative Berkowitz stated that when a bill like HB 37 comes forward that aims to, and actually did divide Alaskans, the quality of legislation that comes out, and its ability to heal and strengthen families was minimal. Representative Berkowitz hoped that Representative Porter was right, and that he was wrong, that women would not die if HB 37 was enacted into law. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the problem that often arose between individuals or organizations where there was a fairly strong difference of opinion, that in nearly every case he had been associated with, the lack of communication had been the problem. He noted that mediation had become a very popular concept because it caused people to communicate. Chairman Green expressed that while HB 37 was limited in its scope to speak to abortions needing parental consent, that it did create a need to go back to communicating between parents and children. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that on issues of extreme importance, such as the intent of HB 37, that to create a need that the child make an effort to consent with the parent or get a judicial bypass, to him, was not an invasion and would not create chaos, and may not even change the number of people getting abortions. But it brings the child and the parent together, which was important to him. Number 1193 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that Representative Porter and Bunde had spoken eloquently and reflected his philosophical position on the overriding issue before the committee. He advised members that his vote today would be one of the few occasions that they have as legislators to get a hold of the very amorphous issue called family values. He felt there were compelling reasons for the state to allow parents to perform their duties and responsibilities of parenting, and he felt that was what the issue was about. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was hopeful that the proposed legislation would be an effective element in producing some salutatory effects on what he felt was the largest social problem in the country, which was teen pregnancy. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt draft CSHB 37 (JUD), Version "F", dated 3/4/97. There being no objection, CSHB 37(JUD) was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSHB 37(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote. In favor: Representatives Bunde, Porter, Rokeberg, James and Chairman Green. Opposed: Representative Croft and Berkowitz. CSHB 37(JUD) was reported out of committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|