Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120

02/29/2008 01:00 PM JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:14:02 PM Start
01:14:53 PM HB364
05:41:12 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= HB 364 NOTICE & CONSENT FOR MINOR'S ABORTION TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 364(JUD) Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
HB 364 - NOTICE & CONSENT FOR MINOR'S ABORTION                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:14:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
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."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
[Following  was a  brief discussion  regarding how  the committee                                                               
would be proceeding.]                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  indicated that he  supports the  bill, particularly                                                               
in an amended form.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:19:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JANA  KREOFSKY  relayed  that  she  is  a  parent  and  would  be                                                               
testifying against  HB 364.   She said  that should  her daughter                                                               
ever find herself in the  really difficult situation of having to                                                               
deal with  an unplanned  pregnancy, she  hopes that  her daughter                                                               
will feel  comfortable coming  to her; "but  the reality  is, for                                                               
her and for  a lot of other children, they  won't, and that's why                                                               
I'm here - ... to try to  protect her right to make those choices                                                               
for herself."   She added:  "I feel like  it's already a horribly                                                               
difficult situation to deal with, and  I don't think it's fair to                                                               
add more;  I'm here to  protect her  right to make  decisions for                                                               
herself that  are, in the  end, really  going to affect  her, her                                                               
life, and her body."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:20:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
AUTUMN  LEACH, Attorney  at Law,  after  relaying that  she is  a                                                               
former legal advocate  for victims of domestic  violence (DV) and                                                               
sexual assault, said she opposes HB  364 because it would force a                                                               
minor  to  ask an  abusive  parent  for  consent to  terminate  a                                                               
pregnancy.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  DAHLSTROM  reiterated  testimony  heard  the  day                                                               
before about a  study of 490 girls who sought  judicial bypass in                                                               
Massachusetts.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:23:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEGH  BARNETT said  she  opposes  HB 364.    Growing  up in  "the                                                               
valley" and in  Talkeetna, she remarked, had she,  as a teenager,                                                               
needed  to  terminate a  pregnancy  but  had  to first  tell  her                                                               
parents,  she  would  have  looked  for  ways  to  terminate  the                                                               
pregnancy  herself, rather  than  get her  parents' consent;  she                                                               
surmised  that a  lot of  girls would  do the  same because  they                                                               
would  find  it  easier  than  talking to  their  parents.    She                                                               
concluded  by  saying:    "I  urge you  to  think  about  keeping                                                               
abortion  safe,  and  this  bill would  make  abortion  not  safe                                                               
because  if a  teenager doesn't  want to  tell their  parents [in                                                               
order] to  get consent  to have  a safe,  legal abortion,  I fear                                                               
that they'll  look for alternatives  to do  so.  Again,  I oppose                                                               
this bill."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. BARNETT, in response to a  question, said she has a wonderful                                                               
relationship with her parents but  doesn't feel it's necessary to                                                               
share information with them about her sexual health.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:25:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KATY SANDERS said  she opposes HB 364.  She  relayed that she has                                                               
a concern  with forcing teenagers  who are in  abusive situations                                                               
to go  to their parents;  regardless that  there might only  be a                                                               
few   such  teenagers,   they  still   need   to  be   protected.                                                               
Furthermore,  teenagers  who  come  from abusive  homes  are  not                                                               
always willing to disclose that  they are from abusive homes, and                                                               
this should  be taken  into account  when considering  any survey                                                               
results.  She explained that in  the rural part of the state that                                                               
she is from,  a magistrate serves the whole  "Copper valley," and                                                               
so if she had to go to  that magistrate to seek a judicial bypass                                                               
by admitting  that she  is from an  abusive home,  everyone would                                                               
know  about it,  and she  feels  that that  would jeopardize  her                                                               
safety.   The bill  is not  addressing what ought  to be  done to                                                               
protect girls in  rural Alaska, or how such girls  could go about                                                               
obtaining judicial bypass.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:26:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ROBIN FORD said  she would be speaking against HB  364.  She said                                                               
she  believes the  bill is  unconstitutional  because the  Alaska                                                               
Supreme Court has  already ruled on a similar [law]  and found it                                                               
to be unconstitutional.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:28:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOLENE FIRMIN  said she  opposes HB  364.   She relayed  that her                                                               
parents  have been  very  involved  her life;  that  she is  very                                                               
grateful for  everything they've done  for her; that she  is from                                                               
Fort Yukon -  a committee of 500;  and that when she  was 14, she                                                               
decided to move  to Fairbanks to get a better  education, and did                                                               
so, with the support of her  parents.  She explained that she did                                                               
not  ask her  parents for  permission when  she decided  to start                                                               
taking birth  control, and  wouldn't have  asked her  parents for                                                               
permission if  she had decided to  seek an abortion.   The option                                                               
proposed by the  bill would have required her to  seek a judicial                                                               
bypass.   But  in  Fort  Yukon, the  magistrate  is her  friend's                                                               
brother,  so her  confidentiality wouldn't  have been  protected,                                                               
and both  she and  the magistrate  would have  been placed  in an                                                               
uncomfortable position.   Keeping  things confidential in  a town                                                               
of 500 people isn't possible, she relayed.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:30:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHRISTINE  FONTAINE, Outreach  Coordinator,  Kachemak Bay  Family                                                               
Planning Clinic  (KBFPC), explained  that the  KBFPC is  a small,                                                               
private,  nonprofit  reproductive-health  clinic that's  been  in                                                               
existence for  about 20  years but is  not an  abortion provider.                                                               
Instead,  the  KBFPC provides  other  services  similar to  those                                                               
provided  by Planned  Parenthood.   She  shared  that when  young                                                               
women call the KBFPC seeking  birth control or pregnancy testing,                                                               
one of the first questions they  often have is whether their call                                                               
will be kept  confidential from their parents.   Currently, staff                                                               
at the KBFPC  can answer that calls are  kept confidential unless                                                               
some form  of abuse is going  on.  These young  women are calling                                                               
the  KBFPC because  they are  either already  sexually active  or                                                               
will  be  soon,   and  they  express  relief   that  someone  can                                                               
confidentially provide  them information  about the  options they                                                               
have.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  FONTAINE  said that  when  a  young  woman  comes in  for  a                                                               
pregnancy  test, she  also receives  counseling because  entities                                                               
that receive Title  X funding are mandated to  inform and counsel                                                               
clients about abstinence,  and are mandated to  suggest that they                                                               
speak with  their parents.   After noting  that she is  a nursing                                                               
student and  has worked in the  acute care unit at  the hospital,                                                               
she said  she has  never met any  medical provider  that wouldn't                                                               
want  parental involvement;  "there is  no agenda  there to  hide                                                               
things from  the parent  - no one  wants that."   So if  a client                                                               
says she  is afraid  or worried about  discussing the  issue with                                                               
her parents,  and staff  determines that abuse  is not  an issue,                                                               
staff will encourage  the client to bring a parent  along for her                                                               
next visit.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. FONTAINE noted that in addition,  the client then also has an                                                               
opportunity  to   receive  other  healthcare  services   such  as                                                               
screening  for  breast  and  cervical  cancer,  and  testing  for                                                               
sexually transmitted diseases  (STDs).  Ms. Fontaine  said she is                                                               
opposed  to   HB  364   because  if   staff  can't   ensure  that                                                               
confidentiality will be maintained once  a young woman decides to                                                               
seek  an  abortion  because  she will  have  to  obtain  parental                                                               
consent, then  staff would be  required to tell the  client that,                                                               
with the  result likely being that  the young woman will  hang up                                                               
the phone and never come in.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  asked Ms.  Fontaine  whether  the KBFPC  would  be                                                               
capable  of  instructing  a  girl  regarding  a  judicial  bypass                                                               
procedure.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. FONTAINE  said the KBFPC  would be  capable of doing  so, but                                                               
pointed out  that if the girl  is in an abusive  situation and is                                                               
seeking a  judicial bypass  for that  reason, regardless  of what                                                               
the KBFPC  does, that girl is  unlikely to have a  lot of support                                                               
or resources  - she will  still be on  her own and  perhaps might                                                               
even see  KBFPC staff  as the  enemy.  So  although the  KBFPC is                                                               
capable  of   providing  information   on  the   judicial  bypass                                                               
procedure, she asked  the committee to not force the  KBFPC to be                                                               
part of  that system;  "I'm asking that  you help  the healthcare                                                               
community  do what  their  job  is, [which]  is  to provide  safe                                                               
health care."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS characterized pregnant teenagers  as one of the most                                                               
vulnerable segments of society, and  acknowledged that it will be                                                               
hard to find a solution.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. FONTAINE, in response to  a question regarding the definition                                                               
of the term  "sexual health" offered her belief  that although it                                                               
is a  private thing  that can't  be legislated,  a person  can be                                                               
educated so as to be able to make better choices.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked Ms.  Fontaine whether she believes                                                               
that  parents  should  be  financially  responsible  for  medical                                                               
treatments pertaining to their daughter's sexual health.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS.  FONTAINE  said  she  is  not  sure  she  would  be  able  to                                                               
accurately  answer   a  question   about  a   parent's  financial                                                               
responsibility.   She  offered her  belief,  however, that  there                                                               
will  be very  few cases  in  Alaska in  which a  minor seeks  an                                                               
abortion without  some form of  parental involvement,  since most                                                               
girls are being counseled to  seek parental involvement, and that                                                               
involvement  is  being  provided  safely.    Again,  if  parental                                                               
consent  is required,  girls will  seek to  abort in  other ways.                                                               
She relayed that young women have  told her that before they came                                                               
into the  KBFPC, they have  thrown themselves down  staircases or                                                               
have had  someone punch them in  the lower abdomen or  have taken                                                               
chemicals in order  to induce an abortion.   These activities are                                                               
far more risky than just  being sexually active.  Also, sometimes                                                               
these pregnant  girls are  involved with  older men.   So  she is                                                               
most concerned,  she relayed,  about the  health care  that these                                                               
girls are getting and about their physical safety.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:39:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. FONTAINE, in response to a  question, said that abortion is a                                                               
health issue for the pregnant woman.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN questioned  whether  some  girls might  need                                                               
some guidance.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. FONTAINE  agreed, and said  she sees  that that might  be the                                                               
intention of  the bill,  but pointed  out no  health practitioner                                                               
tells a girl not to bother  telling her parents - that's not what                                                               
happens in the real world.   "We want those parents involved, and                                                               
when  a  young  woman says  to  me,  'Oh,  I  can never  tell  my                                                               
parents,' well, that's  not true - she could, she  does, it works                                                               
out," she remarked.  There is  no intention to take away parental                                                               
involvement; instead, the  issue is that there  are situations in                                                               
which parental  involvement isn't available.   For example, there                                                               
are  a lot  of young,  homeless girls  in Homer  - their  parents                                                               
aren't  going to  be found,  and those  girls won't  get involved                                                               
with the  legal system,  so they  are at  risk of  taking matters                                                               
into their  own hands  and attempting  to abort  without anyone's                                                               
help or guidance.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:42:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SARAH  FERRENCY  said she  would  be  speaking in  opposition  to                                                               
HB 364.  She mentioned that she  lives in Sitka, is a parent, and                                                               
teaches  at-risk  children  at Sitka's  alternative  school,  and                                                               
shared her belief that in a  democracy - although the will of the                                                               
majority  is followed  -  "we  also owe  it  to  the minority  to                                                               
protect them."   Therefore, regardless  that the number  of girls                                                               
who  can't  obtain  parental  consent might  be  few,  those  few                                                               
deserve protection.  She said  that if her daughter found herself                                                               
pregnant, she would hope that  her daughter would decide to speak                                                               
with her, but her daughter might  not, and although that would be                                                               
disappointing,  she  would  view  that  as  her  own  failure  in                                                               
maintaining a relationship with her  daughter.  She noted that as                                                               
written,  the bill  requires  a girl  to  either obtain  parental                                                               
consent  from an  abusive parent  or report  that parent  for the                                                               
abuse, which  will result in  the parent being  prosecuted; there                                                               
is nothing  in between, and the  girl can't simply slow  down and                                                               
take  the time  to  decide  whether she  wants  to prosecute  her                                                               
parent.   In the circle of  domestic violence, the trend  is that                                                               
it  is  the  victim's  right   to  decide  whether  and  when  to                                                               
prosecute, and this right is being taken away by the bill.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. FERRENCY referred  to the documentation of  abuse required by                                                               
the bill  - a  notarized document from  someone who  has personal                                                               
knowledge of  the abuse.  Does  that mean that the  person has to                                                               
have been present when the  abuse occurred?  Furthermore, as soon                                                               
as  such documentation  is provided  to the  doctor, he/she  will                                                               
report that abuse because doctors  are mandated reporters, and as                                                               
soon as the documentation is provided  to the court, it will have                                                               
to prosecute the parent.  There  is no leeway here, she remarked,                                                               
so she can see situations in  which a girl will instead choose to                                                               
seek a  "back alley abortion"  - an  unsafe abortion.   Even when                                                               
children  have decent  relationships  with  their parents,  their                                                               
parents sometimes hold very strong  views, she noted, and relayed                                                               
that when she was 14, she had  a friend whose parents had made it                                                               
very clear to her friend that  if she ever got pregnant she would                                                               
no longer be  welcome at home; when her friend  did get pregnant,                                                               
she wanted  to have an abortion  so she that she  wouldn't become                                                               
homeless - there just aren't  many options available in Sitka for                                                               
homeless pregnant  girls.  Someone  from such a family  who wants                                                               
stay  in school  and who  wants to  stay with  her family  really                                                               
doesn't have many options.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. FERRENCY -  with regard to the concern that  parents might be                                                               
held financially  responsible for any medical  complications that                                                               
arise from an abortion they didn't  consent to - pointed out that                                                               
a baby  is a  guaranteed financial  responsibility/liability, and                                                               
that the  chances of  medical complications  arising from  a safe                                                               
and legal  abortion are  very small.   The likelihood  of parents                                                               
being  subject  to  financial  liability for  a  safe  and  legal                                                               
abortion is  least, is more for  a "back alley abortion,"  and is                                                               
highest still  for carrying  a baby  to term.   In response  to a                                                               
comment, she offered that her  understanding of the current legal                                                               
system  is that  the woman  -  who has  already been  born -  has                                                               
rights, and that the fetus's rights are much more limited.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  said he doesn't  view a baby as  a liability                                                               
but rather as an asset.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  FERRENCY pointed  out  that  she was  speaking  in terms  of                                                               
financial liability.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:48:50 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
GERAN TARR, Director, Alliance  for Reproductive Justice, relayed                                                               
that she would be speaking in opposition to HB 364.  She said:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     As I  was thinking about  what I  wanted to say,  I was                                                                    
     thinking [that]  I can't really come  up with something                                                                    
     to  change some  of your  minds.   I  spent five  years                                                                    
     working in  this building and we've  talked about these                                                                    
     issues time  and time again,  so I know where  we stand                                                                    
     and  ... I'm  always searching  for that  middle ground                                                                    
     and where  can we come  together.   And so I  guess why                                                                    
     I'm   disappointed   is    that   we're   having   this                                                                    
     conversation   again,   and   we're  not   having   the                                                                    
     conversation about increasing  Denali KidCare or fixing                                                                    
     the  foster care  problems  or  providing better  State                                                                    
     support for  children in need.   And I feel like  if we                                                                    
     could focus on those issues and  do a better job in our                                                                    
     ... role as advocates, and  work with the government to                                                                    
     accomplish those goals  and things that I  think we can                                                                    
     agree on  and have  common ground on,  then I  think we                                                                    
     could spend a  lot less time arguing  over these issues                                                                    
     that are  so divisive  and really  ... hit  at people's                                                                    
     core values.   And I want to be  respectful of people's                                                                    
     values and I think we all do.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     So I do oppose the bill  for many of the reasons stated                                                                    
     earlier, but  I also  hope that we  can consider  a new                                                                    
     approach  as we  move forward  - and  I know  there are                                                                    
     other  pieces  of legislation  here  in  the body  that                                                                    
     address some [of] those issues  I just mentioned, and I                                                                    
     think that it  would be a day to celebrate  if we could                                                                    
     also  get  those  things happening  and  see  what  the                                                                    
     effects of those pieces of  legislation were - and that                                                                    
     we might  find ...,  with a  little better  support and                                                                    
     more  forward-thinking, ...  that some  of these  other                                                                    
     issues  go away.    So  I oppose  this  bill  but I  do                                                                    
     support  some  of  those  other   bills,  and  I'll  be                                                                    
     watching,  and you'll  probably hear  from me  on those                                                                    
     pieces of legislation.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he understands  the concern about Denali                                                               
KidCare  and  the other  programs,  but  opined  that HB  364  is                                                               
primarily about  parental rights  and the  potential overreaching                                                               
of the courts.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. TARR said  she was mentioning those other  issues because she                                                               
sees  them as  interrelated,  and sees  some  family problems  as                                                               
being  related  to those  "sort  of  systemic issues"  that  mean                                                               
"we're  not  supporting  our  families  and  our  women  and  our                                                               
children."  She  said she feels, therefore, that there  is a need                                                               
for a comprehensive approach - sort  of an overhaul - "to the way                                                               
we address  these issues,"  and maybe  that paradigm  shift would                                                               
open a new door through which to move forward.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:53:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SUE JOHNSON relayed that she is  a mother and would like to think                                                               
that her  child would and does  come to her to  discuss important                                                               
issues affecting  his life,  adding that one  can call  that good                                                               
parenting or one could call it good luck.  She went on to say:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     I  oppose [HB  364]  ... for  many  reasons but  mainly                                                                    
     because  it  won't  force  good  communication  between                                                                    
     parents and  teens, and the [Alaska  Supreme Court] has                                                                    
     also  found a  similar bill  [to be]  unconstitutional.                                                                    
     ... I  would like to  share a story, though,  about how                                                                    
     parental   notification  has   unintended  consequences                                                                    
     sometimes.   As a young  girl, I  had ... a  very close                                                                    
     friend  -  her  name's  Rita -  and  we  played  sports                                                                    
     together  all through  grade school  and  part of  high                                                                    
     school, and  we were 16.   She fell head over  heels in                                                                    
     love,  thought  she'd  found her  soul  mate,  and  she                                                                    
     became pregnant, and  she was very happy  about it, and                                                                    
     so she had plans to get  married and have a family.  So                                                                    
     she  announced it  to her  parents -  ... that  she was                                                                    
     going to  get married to this  boy and have a  family -                                                                    
     and ... [they said], "Oh no you're not."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     So the first  thing that happened was  that her parents                                                                    
     threatened  her not  to tell  anybody  else about  this                                                                    
     secret, and then  she was told that she  would not [get                                                                    
     to]  have  the child.    Back  then, abortion  was  not                                                                    
     legal, and  so there was  no choice for the  family but                                                                    
     to take  her to  a back alley  ... [abortionist].   Her                                                                    
     parents  were ...  very active  in the  church and  the                                                                    
     community,  and so  this  event  was a  closely-guarded                                                                    
     secret.    Rita's friends  didn't  know  that this  was                                                                    
     going on,  but we  noticed that she  was out  sick from                                                                    
     school  for long  stretches of  time and  we were  told                                                                    
     that  she was  staying [with]  a sick  aunt in  another                                                                    
     state. ...                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Her  family  ...   [were]  loving,  devout  Christians;                                                                    
     however  things like  sex were  seldom  if ever  talked                                                                    
     about in the home.  And  we didn't see Rita for another                                                                    
     year or  two, and,  when we  did, we  hardly recognized                                                                    
     her.   She looked  old and  she was  using a  cane, and                                                                    
     that was  the result  of the  illegal abortion  by some                                                                    
     back alley  quack who botched the  procedure and ruined                                                                    
     her body and ruined her life.   Since Rita was not able                                                                    
     to make her  own decision about her body,  she lost the                                                                    
     love of  her life,  she lost her  family, and  she lost                                                                    
     her friends.  So I guess  the moral of the story is ...                                                                    
     that  often,  when parents  force  kids  to go  in  the                                                                    
     opposite direction ... from where  they want to go, ...                                                                    
     unintended consequences do occur.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOHNSON, in conclusion, said she hopes the committee will                                                                   
vote to not pass the legislation.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:57:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARILYN RUSSELL  relayed that  she is a  retired teacher,  is the                                                               
mother of  two adult children,  was a  foster mother for  over 12                                                               
years, and is opposed  to HB 364.  By being  a foster mother, she                                                               
remarked, she learned  that by the age of 14,  a person is formed                                                               
and pretty  set with regard  to intelligence and values  - though                                                               
perhaps lacking  in experience -  and is capable of  making major                                                               
life decisions affecting herself/himself.  She added:                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Believe me,  at 13-, 14-, 15-years-old,  ... the foster                                                                    
     kids I've seen are savvy,  and they've been through the                                                                    
     ringer, and  they've been forced  to grow up  fast, and                                                                    
     if they've  [come] ... from  an abusive home -  as many                                                                    
     that I've seen  have - they certainly don't  want to go                                                                    
     home for permission, and I  think that they are capable                                                                    
     of making a decision in this case.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:59:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KAREN L. LEWIS,  Executive Director, Alaska Right  to Life, after                                                               
relaying that her organization has  over 48,000 households in its                                                               
database, said she  supports HB 364, and offered  her belief that                                                               
"the American people  as a whole" also  support such legislation.                                                               
She also  offered her  belief that  there are  polls illustrating                                                               
that more than  75 percent of people believe that  they should be                                                               
involved in their minor child's  decisions - especially ones with                                                               
"this type of impact" - and  that over 90 percent of women who've                                                               
had  an  abortion  have   experienced  a  negative  psychological                                                               
impact.  If a girl were  to make such a life-changing decision as                                                               
getting an  abortion, the girl  would then carry the  full burden                                                               
of  that decision,  but when  the  parents are  brought into  the                                                               
decision-making  process,  the girl  doesn't  have  to carry  the                                                               
entire burden herself.   With regard to the point  that there may                                                               
be some minors who [fear for  their safety if they attempt to get                                                               
parental consent  for an abortion],  she opined that  that's what                                                               
the judicial bypass  is for.  In conclusion, she  offered a quote                                                               
from Thomas  Jefferson - "The  care of human life  and happiness,                                                               
and not their  destruction, is the first and only  object of good                                                               
government" - and said she agrees with that statement.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:02:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DAVID  EASTMON,  JR., relayed  that  he  has  served as  both  an                                                               
emergency  medical technician  (EMT)  and a  police officer,  and                                                               
that  he  is  speaking  on  behalf of  the  children  of  Alaska,                                                               
particularly  on  behalf  of  young girls.    He  encouraged  the                                                               
committee to consider the impact that HB 364 will have on those                                                                 
young girls.  He went on to say:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     When I was first trained  as a police officer, and then                                                                    
     later as  an EMT, I  remember ... - [in]  going through                                                                    
     the training, learning the relevant  laws - the initial                                                                    
     confusion that my classmates and  I had concerning when                                                                    
     it was  proper to  provide medical care  to a  minor in                                                                    
     Alaska.    Minors,  of  course,  cannot  normally  give                                                                    
     consent for  us to provide  them care even if  we might                                                                    
     judge it to  be in their best interest for  us to treat                                                                    
     them.  But  if a parent determines that  the care would                                                                    
     not be in  the child's best interest,  they, of course,                                                                    
     have the legal responsibility  to make that decision on                                                                    
     behalf  of  their  child.   But  of  course  there  are                                                                    
     exceptions.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     For example,  what about when  a parent cannot  or will                                                                    
     not make  a decision?   Then, of course, the  child can                                                                    
     give consent.  What about  if the parent can't be found                                                                    
     or  they're  unavailable?   Again,  the  child  or  the                                                                    
     minor, in  that case, is  able to give consent.   Other                                                                    
     exceptions   would  be   if   the   minor  is   legally                                                                    
     emancipated and the State looks  upon them as an adult.                                                                    
     Of  course at  that  point they  are  entitled to  give                                                                    
     consent on  their own  behalf.  Of  course if  they are                                                                    
     legally married,  if they're  no longer living  at home                                                                    
     with  their  parents,  again, they  can  give  consent.                                                                    
     Each  of  these exceptions  have  been  granted in  the                                                                    
     interests of  the minor, and  I believe they  should be                                                                    
     maintained; I believe that they  are good exceptions to                                                                    
     the general  principle that a  parent is the  one who's                                                                    
     responsible  for  making  some  of  the  more  weighty,                                                                    
     lifelong  - and  [in]  some cases,  decisions that  can                                                                    
     never be reversed - on behalf of ... a young daughter.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Personally,  I  believe that  the  crux  of the  debate                                                                    
     before us is  not so much on the matter  of abortion as                                                                    
     it  is on  the definition  of the  word "minor".   When                                                                    
     this legislation  passes, what  effect will it  have on                                                                    
     the  meaning  of  the  word   "minor"?    Will  it  add                                                                    
     substance to the word, or  do you think it will perhaps                                                                    
     contribute  to diminishing  its meaning?   We  have the                                                                    
     designation, "minor"  not as  a way of  ... designating                                                                    
     someone  a lower  class  of citizen  or  a lower  human                                                                    
     being or less  of a person.  They, of  course, are just                                                                    
     as much a person as any  other of us.  However, knowing                                                                    
     that,  and   knowing  that  they  have   not  the  life                                                                    
     experience  and  the  ability to  make  some  of  those                                                                    
     decisions maturely and with wisdom,  we've left that to                                                                    
     their parents.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  said that under the  bill, an emancipated                                                               
minor, or  a minor who  is a member of  the armed services,  or a                                                               
minor  who   is  married,   or,  he  added,   "a  minor   who  is                                                               
independently caring  for themselves" would be  allowed to obtain                                                               
an  abortion without  parental consent.   He  offered his  belief                                                               
that  the court  has  ruled that  if the  child  so chooses,  her                                                               
parents are forbidden to know [that she is seeking an abortion].                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:06:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DOUGLAS KIDWELL relayed that he is  a parent and that he strongly                                                               
supports HB 364 "and the  importance it holds," which is ensuring                                                               
that  parents maintain  the necessary  awareness regarding  their                                                               
dependents.  He added:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     The  mere thought  [that] a  parent does  not have  the                                                                    
     right  to  keep  abreast  of what's  going  on  with  a                                                                    
     dependent is appalling  to me.  This  isn't a religious                                                                    
     issue - though  it can definitely apply -  but one that                                                                    
     clearly  undermines   the  authority  a   parent  holds                                                                    
     regarding  their  children,  especially when  it  is  a                                                                    
     "dependent" issue.   And that's  one of the  key words,                                                                    
     here, is  "dependent."  The  minor, in this case,  is a                                                                    
     dependent of  the parent; the  parent has  the ultimate                                                                    
     responsibility to  ensure the  wellbeing of  the child,                                                                    
     of  the minor  - in  this case,  we're talking  about a                                                                    
     female  minor  -  and  to go  through  the  process  of                                                                    
     educating,  instructing, guiding,  instilling the  very                                                                    
     principles that  they hold, into  the minor,  there, to                                                                    
     properly prepare  them to venture out  into the outside                                                                    
     world.   And it's hard  enough as  it is -  the parents                                                                    
     have  to fight  through a  lot of  this stuff  that our                                                                    
     youth are  exposed to.   And it's  even worse  when you                                                                    
     have a judge,  or society as a whole,  that states that                                                                    
     a female minor has the  right not to inform her parents                                                                    
     if she's  pregnant, and can  go and obtain  an abortion                                                                    
     on her own.   So, in short, this teaches  our youth not                                                                    
     to honor  and respect their  parents and allow  them to                                                                    
     go   through   the   decision-making.   ...   This   is                                                                    
     unacceptable to me.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:08:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAN     WHITEFIELD,    M.D.,     indicated     that    [as     an                                                               
obstetrician/gynecologist,] he has concerns  about HB 364 because                                                               
it  pertains  to  people  who  come to  him  for  services.    He                                                               
elaborated:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     One of the  concerns I have is that  the [proposed] law                                                                    
     says that  I can use  my clinical judgment  regarding a                                                                    
     concern for an immediate threat  or serious risk to the                                                                    
     life or physical  health of a pregnant  minor, and from                                                                    
     my point  of view that's a  rather ambiguous statement.                                                                    
     It doesn't, for instance,  say whether psychological or                                                                    
     psychiatric health  can be considered part  of physical                                                                    
     health.    That's  a   debatable  question  even  among                                                                    
     healthcare providers,  let alone  attorneys.  And  if I                                                                    
     make a decision  to do a pregnancy  termination and, in                                                                    
     my  best judgment,  I think  it's what's  best for  the                                                                    
     person under  17, and if  that is next challenged  by a                                                                    
     parent, then how is my judgment then evaluated?                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Does  the  court  bring  in   someone  to  evaluate  my                                                                    
     judgment?  And  two people who are  equally trained ...                                                                    
     can  look at  a situation  and come  up with  different                                                                    
     answers as  to whether an  abortion would or  would not                                                                    
     have been  appropriate.  And  if I am challenged  and I                                                                    
     lose, then  what ... have I  lost?  Have I  been fined?                                                                    
     Do I lose my license?  Do I  go to jail?  And those are                                                                    
     all things  that are very  real issues for me  to think                                                                    
     about as a person who provides terminations.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
DR. WHITEFIELD continued:                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     The issue of  a minor who chooses  to get corroboration                                                                    
     for  abuse, as  many  other people  have noted,  that's                                                                    
     really onerous.   I would  imagine that there  are many                                                                    
     times that  a teen  could not find  a sibling  over 21,                                                                    
     law enforcement officers,  someone from [the Department                                                                    
     of Health  and Social Services (DHSS)],  a grandparent,                                                                    
     or  a stepparent  who could  vouch for  them.   So does                                                                    
     that  mean  that the  person  [who]  suffers abuse  but                                                                    
     doesn't  have one  of those  five  sources is  excluded                                                                    
     from  judiciary bypass?   In  terms of  notification to                                                                    
     the  parent, one  of the  things it  spells out  - it's                                                                    
     fairly specific  - is  that I would  call, for  no less                                                                    
     than five calls spaced no less than two hours apart.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     ... In  one day that would  be a call at  8 o'clock, 10                                                                    
     o'clock, 12 o'clock,  2 o'clock, and 4 o'clock  - and I                                                                    
     make those calls.   When you couple that  with the task                                                                    
     of  trying  to  figure   out  if  it's  an  appropriate                                                                    
     telephone number,  ... those are pretty  tough goals to                                                                    
     meet.   I  would challenge  most of  you, in  your busy                                                                    
     schedules that you are running  right now in Juneau, to                                                                    
     walk out at 8:00, 10:00,  12:00, and 2:00, and 4:00 ...                                                                    
     to do something  like this.  I mean, it  certainly is a                                                                    
     significant task.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
DR. WHITEFIELD went on to say:                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     There is  an option where if  a minor comes in  and can                                                                    
     demonstrate sufficient maturation, ...  they can try to                                                                    
     go   through   the   process   without   parental   ...                                                                    
     notification and consent.  Well,  who decides that this                                                                    
     person's mature  enough?  Is  this a decision  that the                                                                    
     courts make?   Do they hire special people  who come in                                                                    
     to  do  a,  quote,  "maturation  appraisal"  to  decide                                                                    
     whether  or not  the teen  is mature  enough?   I mean,                                                                    
     it's not a very well-defined sort of bypass.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     And lastly,  as I went  through the judicial  bypass, I                                                                    
     tried  to figure  out,  from the  day  that a  claimant                                                                    
     comes  in  and  says   'I  want  to  exercise  judicial                                                                    
     bypass,'  if the  maximum  time is  used  at each  step                                                                    
     along  the way,  by my  calculations, from  the time  a                                                                    
     claimant  puts in  a request  for  judicial bypass,  to                                                                    
     when it comes out the  back end by the [Alaska] Supreme                                                                    
     Court, that can take 11  working days.  Now, 11 working                                                                    
     days is  one thing,  but when somebody's  pregnant, the                                                                    
     days  aren't "working  days" -  they're days  - and  11                                                                    
     working  days  can  translate  into  no  less  than  15                                                                    
     calendar days.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     In  terms  of  supplying a  pregnancy  termination,  if                                                                    
     there's a delay  of two weeks, that  increases the risk                                                                    
     [for   the   person   who's  getting   the]   pregnancy                                                                    
     termination.  ... And  so the  bypass procedure  is not                                                                    
     only onerous, because  the person who comes in  to be a                                                                    
     claimant has to be pretty  well together when they walk                                                                    
     in the front  door, but coming out the  other end, they                                                                    
     have now been set back about two weeks and a day.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:13:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  DAHLSTROM, referring  to [an  article from  Time]                                                             
titled "What  Makes Teens Tick?", offered  her understanding that                                                               
it  highlights a  study which  illustrates that  the human  brain                                                               
continues  to develop  well past  puberty, with  one of  the last                                                               
developments  being to  the part  of the  brain -  the prefrontal                                                               
cortex -  that results in  an increased  ability to plan,  to set                                                               
priorities, to  organize thoughts,  to suppress impulses,  and to                                                               
weigh the consequences of one's actions.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
DR.  WHITEFIELD said  it would  be nice  if sexual  maturity were                                                               
delayed  until  the  prefrontal  cortex  of  the  brain  finished                                                               
maturing, but  the reality  is that  teenagers will  get pregnant                                                               
regardless of what such studies illustrate.  He went on to say:                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     My findings  in my office  are very similar to  what is                                                                    
     found  in  Planned Parenthood,  and  that  is that  the                                                                    
     majority  of  teens  who  walk   in  here  to  ask  for                                                                    
     pregnancy termination  fortunately come with  a parent.                                                                    
     And I'm always  thankful for [that] because,  for me, I                                                                    
     can't  imagine a  better  support for  a  child than  a                                                                    
     parent.  But  I've also seen cases where  there isn't a                                                                    
     good  support  for  the  child  -  the  parent  is  not                                                                    
     necessarily  good support.   And  of  course one  would                                                                    
     say,  'Well,  that's  what the  whole  process  of  the                                                                    
     judicial bypass  is," and  I laud  you for  putting the                                                                    
     judicial bypass in, and not  only putting it in, but to                                                                    
     try to change the dates  from, in some cases, five days                                                                    
     to  three days,  and,  [in] some  cases,  four days  to                                                                    
     three days.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     But the  reality will always remain  that there's going                                                                    
     to be  some teens who  will not  have a safe  place for                                                                    
     them  to  be  able  to   go  to,  to  talk  about  this                                                                    
     situation,  and  for those,  the  bypass,  I think,  is                                                                    
     important  but  I  don't  think   that  the  bypass  is                                                                    
     functional.   That doesn't take  away from  my concern,                                                                    
     as a provider, that if I  exercise my judgment and I do                                                                    
     a  termination  on  a  pregnant   teen,  then  to  what                                                                    
     standards  am  I  held,  because  this  bill  is  quite                                                                    
     ambiguous on  that.  And  it's important  to understand                                                                    
     that  if the  standards  are  such that  I  wind up  in                                                                    
     prison, that's  going to have a  pretty chilling effect                                                                    
     on whether or  not we would of course  consider doing a                                                                    
     pregnancy  termination  on a  teen  no  matter how  ...                                                                    
     [compelling]  that  teen's  argument might  be  -  it's                                                                    
     probably not going to happen.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     So  ... this  is  a  less-than-a-perfect-situation.   I                                                                    
     wish it  was other,  but the  minority that  this bill,                                                                    
     realistically, [is]  ... going  to affect are  the ones                                                                    
     that are not going to be  sort of affected by the study                                                                    
     that you  just read.   The majority of people  who walk                                                                    
     in here  will have  a parent with  them and,  for them,                                                                    
     that  study becomes  meaningless,  and  for those  that                                                                    
     don't  have  a  good working  relationship  with  their                                                                    
     parents, that study's still meaningless.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:20:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  said he has been  attempting to institute                                                               
a workable  judicial bypass.   He asked  how often  someone who's                                                               
been sexually  abused or otherwise  traumatized comes  in seeking                                                               
an  abortion, and  what reporting  mechanism do  doctors have  to                                                               
report instances of sexual abuse.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
DR. WHITEFIELD  said that the  process he  uses is the  same that                                                               
any other  mandatory reporter  uses.  If  someone comes  into his                                                               
office that appears to have  been sexually abused, then that will                                                               
be reported.   However, he  pointed out, when  he has done  so in                                                               
the  past, it  has not  proven to  be a  particularly transparent                                                               
process;  he's  had  some problems  identifying  the  appropriate                                                               
agency to  call in order  to get someone to  respond - it  is not                                                               
necessarily a straightforward process.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  indicated  that  that  issue  should  be                                                               
addressed.   He  sought confirmation  that when  suspected sexual                                                               
abuse is reported, everything remains confidential.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
DR. WHITEFIELD  explained that  things don't  remain confidential                                                               
if  suspected   sexual  abuse  is  reported,   because  then  the                                                               
authorities have to contact the victim.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG,  referring to Dr.  Whitefield's concern                                                               
regarding  AS  18.16.030(b)(4)(A) -  which  pertains  to a  minor                                                               
showing that she is sufficiently  mature and well enough informed                                                               
to  get an  abortion without  parental  consent -  noted that  AS                                                               
18.16.030(e) reads:                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
          (e) If the complainant makes only the allegation                                                                      
     set out in  (b)(4)(A) of this section and  if the court                                                                    
     finds  by  clear  and   convincing  evidence  that  the                                                                    
     complainant  is  sufficiently  mature and  well  enough                                                                    
     informed  to decide  intelligently whether  to have  an                                                                    
     abortion, the  court shall  issue an  order authorizing                                                                    
     the  complainant  to  consent  to  the  performance  or                                                                    
     inducement  of an  abortion without  the  consent of  a                                                                    
     parent, guardian, or custodian.   If the court does not                                                                    
     make  the  finding  specified in  this  subsection,  it                                                                    
     shall dismiss the complaint.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG offered  his understanding,  then, that                                                               
the  determination regarding  whether the  minor is  sufficiently                                                               
mature  and well  enough  informed  will be  made  by the  court.                                                               
However, that determination must be  made by clear and convincing                                                               
evidence - the highest standard possible  in a civil case and the                                                               
same   standard  that's   used  to   terminate  parental   rights                                                               
[altogether].                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:26:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DR.  WHITEFIELD opined  that that  sets the  standard exceedingly                                                               
high  for  the  pregnant  teenager  and  will  more  than  likely                                                               
eliminate that provision as an option for her.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG observed  that  that  same standard  is                                                               
used  when a  pregnant teenager  seeks a  judicial bypass  on the                                                               
grounds that she is abused.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
DR. WHITEFIELD opined  that that is an  exceedingly high standard                                                               
for a  child who is  in an abusive situation,  particularly given                                                               
that she would have  to have someone - a sibling  over the age of                                                               
21,  a  law enforcement  officer,  an  employee  of the  DHSS,  a                                                               
grandparent,  or a  stepparent  - substantiate  that  claim in  a                                                               
notarized format.  That standard  essentially puts the parents in                                                               
a  significantly  superior  position  if  the  child  cannot  get                                                               
someone  to step  up  for  her, because  the  parents can  simply                                                               
assert that  they are  not abusive.   This  will leave  the minor                                                               
exposed  to   the  parent   who  is  doing   the  abusing.     He                                                               
characterized that standard as a steep requirement to overcome.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM  said that having raised  four children,                                                               
she suspects that probably each  could have claimed abuse at some                                                               
point but that they now realize  they weren't abused at all.  She                                                               
said  that although  the  type of  abuse  that's being  discussed                                                               
actually  does  exist,  she surmised  that  the  judicial  bypass                                                               
procedure provided for in HB 364  could be used by some teenagers                                                               
to   blow   things  out   of   proportion.     Furthermore,   the                                                               
aforementioned   study   indicates   that   the   decision-making                                                               
capability  of  teenagers  is  not  as  developed  as  originally                                                               
thought -  teenagers may not  be as  mature as most  people would                                                               
like to  think.  What this  translates to, she remarked,  is that                                                               
when people are  young, they think they know  everything and have                                                               
all the answers, yet they  don't really realize all the potential                                                               
consequences  of their  behavior.   This  research  helps in  the                                                               
understanding   that   normal   teenagers  don't   organize   and                                                               
understand information in  the same way adults do,  and thus they                                                               
are  not  capable  of  making   an  appropriate  decision.    She                                                               
suggested that  knowledge of  this fact is  why children  are not                                                               
allowed to get a driver's license  until they are 16, or join the                                                               
military until they are 18.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said  she believes that HB  364 contains an                                                               
extremely  onerous  "abuse"  standard,  particularly  given  that                                                               
Alaska has such a high rate of child abuse.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:32:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SHELLY BOYER-WOOD, after relaying that  she is a mother, said she                                                               
is  concerned  that  the   aforementioned  evidence  standard  is                                                               
tremendously  high.   Furthermore,  since even  most adults  feel                                                               
intimidated by the court system,  she said she can't imagine what                                                               
it must  feel like for  a child who  doesn't have the  benefit of                                                               
"an adult  working brain"  to have  to go  before the  courts and                                                               
explain why  she feels  she needs  an abortion.   She went  on to                                                               
say:                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     [House Bill  364] is a  misguided piece  of legislation                                                                    
     that would  allow the further  alienation and  trauma a                                                                    
     young woman  would experience  as the  result of  a bad                                                                    
     choice, rape,  or even incest.   The so-called parental                                                                    
     rights  of those  that  want to  control  the lives  of                                                                    
     their daughters do not trump  the rights of traumatized                                                                    
     young  women across  Alaska.   Once a  young woman  has                                                                    
     made the tormenting decision  to terminate a pregnancy,                                                                    
     with  or  without  discussing the  situation  with  her                                                                    
     parents,  she should  have  the  safest, cleanest,  and                                                                    
     most supportive  environment within which to  carry out                                                                    
     her decision.  I as a  parent gladly waive any claim to                                                                    
     parental rights  when it comes  to the life  and safety                                                                    
     of my child.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     When a  young woman  has decided, for  whatever reason,                                                                    
     to terminate a  pregnancy, she will stop  at nothing to                                                                    
     do  so.    I  would  like  to  direct  the  committee's                                                                    
     attention  to  the era  of  the  1950s, wherein  it  is                                                                    
     documented  that  many mothers,  grandmothers,  nieces,                                                                    
     sisters, and  daughters were  left with  no alternative                                                                    
     but to  seek the services  of back alley  butchers when                                                                    
     they sought  to terminate a  pregnancy.  Many  of these                                                                    
     women, young and middle-aged  alike, were left sterile,                                                                    
     and   many  endured   horrendous   infections  due   to                                                                    
     unsanitary conditions.   One  such account  details the                                                                    
     death of a young mother  left for dead, hemorrhaging in                                                                    
     a hotel  room after the so-called  doctor, who demanded                                                                    
     payment up front, performed his  deed and then promptly                                                                    
     left the dying woman without any afterthought.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Additionally, has the thought  that a young woman might                                                                    
     commit suicide  as an  option to  end or  terminate her                                                                    
     pregnancy crossed  the minds of  anyone there?   Do not                                                                    
     think for  one second  that the  option does  not cross                                                                    
     the mind of a young woman  in trouble.  If you take the                                                                    
     legal means  away from  them, you will  see a  spike in                                                                    
     teen suicide for not only  young women but also ... the                                                                    
     young men that  love them.  I, for one,  am not willing                                                                    
     to sacrifice  those young people  for those  that argue                                                                    
     in favor of parental rights.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. BOYER-WOOD concluded:                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Also,   please  consider   the  likelihood   that  this                                                                    
     legislation would  cause young women to  seek abortions                                                                    
     in Mexico,  where health standards  are much  lower and                                                                    
     safety  of the  patient is  not of  concern.   The real                                                                    
     concern in Mexico is money  and how much money a doctor                                                                    
     with a "no questions"  attitude can make for performing                                                                    
     abortions on  the young woman coming  across the border                                                                    
     to get, what  they consider at the time, help.   I will                                                                    
     tenaciously attack  this or any other  legislation that                                                                    
     attempts to put Alaska's young women in jeopardy.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:36:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHRISTOPHER  REYNOLDS,  Licensed  Professional  Counselor  (LPC),                                                               
relayed that he  is a clinical therapist in  private practice, is                                                               
the past president of the  American Counseling Association (ACA),                                                               
and is the current representative  of the American Association of                                                               
Sexuality  Educators, Counselors,  and  Therapists (AASECT),  and                                                               
that he would  be speaking in opposition to HB  364.  Noting that                                                               
he has  14 years' of  experience working with youth  and families                                                               
in  a clinical  setting,  he said  he would  be  speaking to  two                                                               
points,  one  of them  being  about  the bill's  judicial  bypass                                                               
provision.  He elaborated:                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     It's [my] clinical opinion that  the hoops that a youth                                                                    
     would  have  to  go  through to  access  this  judicial                                                                    
     bypass really  seem developmentally  inappropriate ...,                                                                    
     and  ... looking  back on  the youth  that I've  served                                                                    
     that  have been  in these  situations, I  can't imagine                                                                    
     them  negotiating  the  Alaska  Superior  Court  in  an                                                                    
     effort  to access  that judicial  bypass.   The  second                                                                    
     point  that  I  wanted  to make  is  specifically  with                                                                    
     [regard]   to    the   [issue]   ...   of    lying   to                                                                    
     provide/prevent  parental  consent.    And  I  want  to                                                                    
     recognize  that at  the point  at which  a teen  has an                                                                    
     unwanted pregnancy,  there really are no  good options,                                                                    
     and  it  seems  to  me  that  ...  the  task  that  the                                                                    
     committee  has is  trying to  figure out  what are  the                                                                    
     better of a few bad options.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     And I  want to  recognize that  having a  teenager make                                                                    
     the   decision  about   whether   to  terminate   their                                                                    
     pregnancy  or to  carry  it  full term  is  not a  good                                                                    
     option, but I also would  like for you to consider that                                                                    
     forcing  that  same  teen  to  carry  out  an  unwanted                                                                    
     pregnancy,  go  through  the birth  process,  and  then                                                                    
     either  put  the  child  up for  adoption  or  have  an                                                                    
     unwanted child  also has very  substantial risks.   And                                                                    
     if you  would ask me which  of those two options  has a                                                                    
     higher  risk for  promoting damage  and  trauma to  the                                                                    
     child, without  hesitation I would  say, the  second of                                                                    
     those two options.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:39:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. REYNOLDS,  in response to questions,  explained that although                                                               
he has counseled pregnant teenagers,  he has not referred them to                                                               
abortion  services,   but  would  connect  them   with  community                                                               
resources if  they did end  up seeking  abortion services.   As a                                                               
therapist, he  pointed out, it's  his job  to help the  child and                                                               
the  family come  to their  own conclusions  about the  direction                                                               
they wish to pursue.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that Mr.  Reynolds is in a position                                                               
to help a teenager make a  decision that would trump her parents'                                                               
decision without their knowledge.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. REYNOLDS responded,  "I would say that it  wouldn't trump the                                                               
parents' decision; I would say  that it would be supporting where                                                               
the teen would be going."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that  abrogation of parental rights is                                                               
a  very serous  issue.    He asked  Mr.  Reynolds  what he  would                                                               
suggest  to  make  the  judicial  bypass  procedure  as  easy  as                                                               
possible.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  REYNOLDS said  that  in thinking  about  the teenagers  that                                                               
could  find themselves  in  this situation,  he  can't imagine  a                                                               
solution that would include them having  to go to the court house                                                               
- that is an unrealistic solution;  rather, it would be better if                                                               
they could  be met in  a place where  they feel comfortable.   He                                                               
added,  "To ask  them  to have  the self  esteem  and the  coping                                                               
skills to  be able to  negotiate the judicial bypass  process the                                                               
way  that  it's  outlined  in  this  bill,  I  think,  is  really                                                               
unrealistic."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN surmised,  "I suppose  you think  the courts                                                               
should come to  the young mother rather than the  young mother to                                                               
the court."                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. REYNOLDS  responded, "I don't think  that's realistic either,                                                               
and  I think  that's a  good reason  why this  bill shouldn't  be                                                               
passed, because that's simply an unrealistic expectation."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:42:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
AMY  DEVEREUX relayed  that she  is the  mother of  a 10-year-old                                                               
boy, and that she opposes HB 364.   She said that for most of her                                                               
son's life, she has been a single parent.  She elaborated:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     As  a teenager,  I was  faced  with the  dilemma of  an                                                                    
     unplanned pregnancy, so I understand  this issue from a                                                                    
     teenager's perspective  and I know the  desperation and                                                                    
     fear that  a young couple  can face in  this situation.                                                                    
     Young  people that  are not  given options  when facing                                                                    
     such  a  difficult decision  are  more  likely to  make                                                                    
     choices that end in drastic  or unsafe measures.  Right                                                                    
     now, my  son is only 10  years old, and we  have a very                                                                    
     close relationship - he tells  me everything - but I am                                                                    
     not so  naive as to  think this will continue  into his                                                                    
     teenage  years.   I would  like to  think that  we will                                                                    
     still have this relationship when  he is older, but the                                                                    
     reality is  that he may not  see me as a  person he can                                                                    
     confide  in  and  look  to  for  help  in  a  desperate                                                                    
     situation.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     My main  concern for him is  that he gets the  care and                                                                    
     the  assistance   that  he   needs  regardless   of  my                                                                    
     involvement in the  situation.  And, yes,  as a parent,                                                                    
     it would break my heart to  know that he could not talk                                                                    
     to me  about an  unplanned pregnancy  or any  number of                                                                    
     other things that may arise  in his teen years, but his                                                                    
     access  to  accurate  information and  safety  is  more                                                                    
     important to  me than  my consent  or notification.   I                                                                    
     believe  that  House Bill  364  will  restrict a  young                                                                    
     person's access  to counseling  and safe  medical care,                                                                    
     and, as  an Alaskan parent,  that's why I  oppose House                                                                    
     Bill 364.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:44:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NANCY SCHEETZ-FREYMILLER relayed that she  is the parent of a 22-                                                               
year-old young woman, and that  although she respects the concept                                                               
of   parental  rights,   she   doesn't   think  that   government                                                               
interference will improve  her communication as a  parent or take                                                               
away  her rights  as a  parent.   Regardless that  some committee                                                               
members are  concerned about  the issue  of parental  rights, she                                                               
said  she  doesn't  see  this  proposed  government  solution  as                                                               
helping at all.  In conclusion,  she said she is speaking against                                                               
HB  364, and  urged the  committee  to understand  that it  won't                                                               
improve parental communication with teenagers.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN  asked  Ms. Scheetz-Freymiller  whether  she                                                               
considers  the  Alaska  Supreme  Court's  decision  in  State  v.                                                             
Planned Parenthood  of Alaska to  be a governmental  intrusion on                                                             
parental rights.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. SCHEETZ-FREYMILLER  characterized her  rights as a  parent as                                                               
something - though nebulous - that  she will always have with her                                                               
child.  Regardless  that everyone is trying to be  a good parent,                                                               
there are  exceptions to  "the good family,"  and this  bill will                                                               
have a tremendous impact [on  those who don't have good parents].                                                               
She  said  she  doesn't  think   that  the  effort  to  legislate                                                               
understanding between  parents and their children  is proper, nor                                                               
will  that effort  have the  anticipated  impact.   Communication                                                               
between parent and child will either  happen or it won't, and the                                                               
consequences of HB 364 are too  drastic and too harmful to result                                                               
in the desired outcome, she added.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:48:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ROBERTA N. HUNTER relayed she is  the mother of ten children, one                                                               
of  whom is  a  teenage  girl, and  that  she  has been  actively                                                               
involved with abortion  issues for over six years.   She said she                                                               
is in  support of HB  364, and  offered her belief  that abortion                                                               
leads  to drug  and  alcohol use,  depression,  and suicide,  and                                                               
sends many women into a  downward spiral - emotionally, mentally,                                                               
and spiritually.  She went on to say:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The younger  a woman is,  the more deeply  these things                                                                    
     seem to happen.  To  have teens go through such things,                                                                    
     and  for  their parents  to  have  no  idea why,  is  a                                                                    
     surefire  recipe  for   destruction  among  an  Alaskan                                                                    
     family.  This  sort of pain, to be a  parent who has no                                                                    
     idea  what has  happened to  or is  happening to  their                                                                    
     child and  therefore not know  how to help,  is tragic.                                                                    
     To be  a teen and  to hide,  first of all  a pregnancy,                                                                    
     then  an  abortion,  then  the  aftereffects  of  these                                                                    
     things  from your  parents, is  almost unfathomable  as                                                                    
     far  as imagining  the guilt,  suffering, and  pain the                                                                    
     child must  feel she  has to  endure.   This is  a good                                                                    
     bill  for   Alaska  families  ...;  there   are  enough                                                                    
     provisions  in this  bill to  protect  minors that  are                                                                    
     actually abused.   If a teen wants  an abortion without                                                                    
     her parents'  consent, there are plenty  of provisions,                                                                    
     for her to attempt this, in this bill.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. HUNTER  opined that contrary to  what some have said,  HB 364                                                               
will help  parents talk to  their teenagers because  the majority                                                               
of teenagers  will have  to obtain  their parents'  permission in                                                               
order  to get  an  abortion.   Regardless of  the  impact such  a                                                               
conversation will  have on the  parents, the teenagers  will feel                                                               
relief,  and the  parents will  be  able to  employ adult  coping                                                               
mechanisms.   Open communication between parents  and children is                                                               
always good.  She added:                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     In   the    state   of    Alaska,   the    rights   and                                                                    
     responsibilities of parents  includes that of providing                                                                    
     ...  medical care  for our  children.   On one  hand we                                                                    
     have   the  government   telling  us   that  to   be  a                                                                    
     responsible parent,  we are to protect  and nurture our                                                                    
     children  and  provide  them with  responsible  medical                                                                    
     care.   On the other  hand, [the] Alaska  Supreme Court                                                                    
     has  told us  that  our children,  in  cases of  sexual                                                                    
     medical   issues,   don't   need  our   permission   or                                                                    
     participation in  their medical care, and  that we, the                                                                    
     parents, don't  even need to know  about our children's                                                                    
     sexual activities.   This is foolery.   Sexual activity                                                                    
     often  leads to  the  need for  medical  care, and,  as                                                                    
     parents,  it's our  right  and  responsibility to  seek                                                                    
     appropriate medical care  for our children.   We have a                                                                    
     right   and   responsibility   to  know   and   respond                                                                    
     appropriately  to  our  children's medical  needs,  and                                                                    
     this bill, HB 364, legally grants us this.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS, after  ascertaining  that no  one  else wished  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony on HB 364.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 2:54 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:15:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL, in  addition to  outlining the  existing                                                               
provisions of  AS 18.16.010(a),  indicated that  Section 1  of HB                                                               
364 adds a  stipulation that an abortion may not  be performed on                                                               
an unemancipated  woman under  17 years of  age unless  notice as                                                               
required  under AS  18.16.020 has  been  given.   Section 2  adds                                                               
language regarding  the physician or surgeon's  clinical judgment                                                               
to AS  18.16.010(g), which provides  a defense  from prosecution.                                                               
Section  3 [repeals  and reenacts]  AS 18.16.020,  which outlines                                                               
the notice and consent requirements.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  then indicated  that in Section  3, under                                                               
subsection (a)  of proposed AS  18.16.020, before an  abortion on                                                               
an unemancipated  minor under 17  years of age can  be performed,                                                               
one of the following must apply:   (1) the minor's parents, legal                                                               
guardian,  or custodian  shall have  been given  notice not  less                                                               
than 48 hours before the abortion  is performed and in turn shall                                                               
have given written consent; (2) a  court issues an order under AS                                                               
18.16.030  authorizing  the minor  herself  to  consent; (3)  the                                                               
court,  by  it's  inaction under  AS  18.16.030,  [constructively                                                               
authorizes the  minor herself  to consent]; or  (4) the  minor is                                                               
the  victim of  physical abuse,  sexual  abuse, or  a pattern  of                                                               
emotional  abuse  by one  or  both  parents, legal  guardian,  or                                                               
custodian, and  the abuse is  documented by a declaration  of the                                                               
abuse  in a  signed  and  notarized statement  by  the minor  and                                                               
another person - a sibling who  is at least 21, a law enforcement                                                               
officer, [a representative  of the DHSS who  has investigated the                                                               
abuse,]  a  grandparent,  or  a stepparent  -  who  has  personal                                                               
knowledge of the abuse.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL offered  his  belief that  a minor  needs                                                               
help when making a decision  [about whether to have an abortion];                                                               
that  this was  "agreed  to"  in the  court's  ruling in  Planned                                                             
Parenthood of Alaska;  that "these give ample reason  for a State                                                             
compelling   interest  to   give  them   that  line";   and  that                                                               
[subsection (a)(4)  of Section 3]  addresses some of  the court's                                                               
concerns in the aforementioned case.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:21:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  indicated  that   Section  3  also  adds                                                               
several provisions  regarding notification.   The  new provisions                                                               
in  proposed  subsection  (b)(1)-(2)  and (c)  outline  what  the                                                               
physician must  document, how  the physician is  to go  about the                                                               
notification  process,  how  the   physician  is  to  verify  the                                                               
identify  the  person  who's  being given  notice  -  whether  by                                                               
telephone or  in person - and  what the physician should  do when                                                               
he/she  is  unsuccessful in  giving  "actual  notice".   Proposed                                                               
subsection   (d)  outlines   that  instances   of  suspected   or                                                               
documented abuse  shall be reported, and  proposed subsection (e)                                                               
requires  the   physician  to  retain   and  preserve,   for  law                                                               
enforcement officials, the products  of conception resulting from                                                               
criminal sexual assault of a minor.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL indicated  that  Sections 4  and 5  [make                                                               
conforming changes  - regarding the  new notice requirement  - to                                                               
AS 18.16.030(a)  and AS 18.16.030(b)  respectively,] and  that AS                                                               
18.16.030 pertains  to the  judicial bypass  procedure, including                                                               
what statements are  required by the court,  and what allegations                                                               
by the minor  the court must consider - either  that the minor is                                                               
sufficiently mature and  well enough informed to  get an abortion                                                               
without parental consent, and/or that  the minor is the victim of                                                               
physical abuse, sexual abuse, or  a pattern of emotional abuse by                                                               
one  or  both parents,  legal  guardian,  or custodian  [or  that                                                               
obtaining consent would not be in the minor's best interest].                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:25:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  indicated  that   Section  6  alters  AS                                                               
18.16.030(c)  by  changing,  from  five business  days  to  three                                                               
business days, the  timeframe in which the  Alaska Superior Court                                                               
must fix  a time for  a hearing  pertaining to a  judicial bypass                                                               
request; that Section 7 alters  AS 18.16.030(j) by changing, from                                                               
four days to  three days, the timeframes pertaining  to an appeal                                                               
by  the  minor of  the  Alaska  Superior Court's  decision,  [and                                                               
making  conforming   changes  with  regard  to   the  new  notice                                                               
requirement];  and  that  Section  8  alters  AS  18.16.030(n)  -                                                               
pertaining to the forms and  information the court must provide -                                                               
to  include  a  stipulation  that the  court  must  also  provide                                                               
information that the minor can request  the court to issue her an                                                               
excuse from school to attend the judicial bypass hearings.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL opined  that those  in urban  areas won't                                                               
have a problem making use  of the judicial bypass provisions, but                                                               
acknowledged  that  those  in  rural areas  may  have  issues  to                                                               
overcome.     He   characterized   proposed  18.16.030(n)(5)   as                                                               
important  with   regard  to  maintaining   confidentiality,  and                                                               
indicated that  although keeping  things confidential in  a small                                                               
town could be problematic, the goal  is to provide the minor with                                                               
as much privacy as possible.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  indicated that Section 9  [which adds two                                                               
new sections to AS 18.16]  precludes a parent, legal guardian, or                                                               
custodian  from   coercing  a  pregnant  minor   into  having  an                                                               
abortion; stipulates that withholding  financial support in order                                                               
to coerce the  minor into having an abortion  shall be sufficient                                                               
evidence   of  emancipation   status;  defines   "coercion"  [for                                                               
purposes  of AS  18.16.035]; and  establishes a  requirement that                                                               
the  physician  provide  the  DHSS with  a  monthly  report  that                                                               
includes  information   about  each  minor  he/she   performs  an                                                               
abortion  on, and  outlines what  that information  shall consist                                                               
of.   Sections 10-16  provide for  conforming court  rule changes                                                               
[to the Alaska  Rules of Appellate Procedure,  the Alaska Probate                                                               
Rules,  and the  Alaska Rules  of Civil  procedure].   Section 18                                                               
proposes to  add to the  uncodified laws a right  of intervention                                                               
provision;  this,  he remarked,  will  give  the legislature  the                                                               
right to defend this legislation should it be challenged.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said:                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     There's no  doubt in my  mind ... that  this particular                                                                    
     issue is a  societal question that will  be worked back                                                                    
     and forth  through the legislature, in  the courts, and                                                                    
     in  society generally  for several  reasons.   What  we                                                                    
     have here ... is a balance  of ... the right of privacy                                                                    
     for  an individual,  and  the right  of  parents to  be                                                                    
     involved  in [the]  ... decision  making  of the  young                                                                    
     child  - the  minor.   And I  fall in  the place  where                                                                    
     wherever it  is humanly practical, and  the parents are                                                                    
     good actors,  that the  right of a  parent is  equal to                                                                    
     the right  of the child  in that regard, and  they must                                                                    
     [not  be]  severed  by  law.   And  that's  what  we've                                                                    
     actually  done with  the [Alaska]  Supreme Court  case,                                                                    
     and they  said that  there was  not a  compelling State                                                                    
     interest to keep those  together under their standards.                                                                    
     And I disagreed with their standards, obviously.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out  that although the courts have                                                               
said that  constitutional rights don't  start when one  reaches a                                                               
particular  age,   Alaska  law  views  parents   as  the  primary                                                               
protectors and guardians  of minors, "and so I think  we can show                                                               
a compelling State interest."  He  opined that HB 364 is meant to                                                               
address some of the court's  concerns by providing for a judicial                                                               
bypass procedure that gives the  minor the ability to demonstrate                                                               
before  the  court that  she  is  responsible  enough to  make  a                                                               
decision  [about abortion].   He  opined that  that is  something                                                               
that needs to be demonstrated, for  the welfare of both the minor                                                               
and her  family, and  said that although  some people  think that                                                               
the right of the pregnant  girl trumps everyone else's rights, he                                                               
disagrees.   When  a minor  is in  trouble, someone  needs to  be                                                               
there to help  her, and that's one of the  roles of court system,                                                               
regardless that it might be intimidating.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:33:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES remarked:                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     This is an emotional issue,  ... and I personally would                                                                    
     love to live in a world  were this wasn't an issue; I'd                                                                    
     love  to  live   in  a  world  where   we  didn't  have                                                                    
     unplanned, unwanted  pregnancies, where we  didn't have                                                                    
     teenagers  facing these  decisions.   That would  be my                                                                    
     ideal  world, [and]  I'd like  to say  it would  be the                                                                    
     ideal world for ... most of  us in this room.  So we're                                                                    
     starting from  an uncomfortable place, where  we're not                                                                    
     living  in anybody's  ideal  world,  and we're  talking                                                                    
     about what  happens when everything goes  wrong and you                                                                    
     do  have a  teenager  who is  pregnant  - probably  not                                                                    
     intentionally,  maybe intentionally  - and  in my  view                                                                    
     we're dealing,  in this  bill, particularly  with those                                                                    
     who  are not  in the  most ideal  [world], who  are not                                                                    
     living in Leave It To Beaver  families.  I had a pretty                                                                  
     Leave   It   To   Beaver   family   myself,   ...   but                                                                  
     unfortunately  the statistics  tell us  that's not  the                                                                    
     case in a large number of Alaskan families.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES,  referring  to   Section  2,  noted  that                                                               
proposed AS 18.16.010(g) adds ",  in the clinical judgment of the                                                           
physician  or  surgeon" and  then  goes  on to  define  "clinical                                                           
judgment" as "a physician's  or surgeon's subjective professional                                                           
medical  judgment exercised  in good  faith".   She characterized                                                           
that  as a  somewhat circular  definition,  and said  she is  not                                                               
entirely   sure  what   that   means.     Furthermore,   proposed                                                               
18.16.010(g)(3)(B)  requires  a  physician,  in  instances  of  a                                                               
medical  emergency,  to  prove  that  a  delay  in  providing  an                                                               
abortion  will  create  a serious  risk  of  medical  instability                                                               
caused by  a substantial and  irreversible impairment of  a major                                                               
bodily  function  of   the  pregnant  minor.     Referring  to  a                                                               
memorandum dated 2/27/08  written by the drafter,  she noted that                                                               
[with regard to the aforementioned  requirement] it says in part,                                                               
"I am  not aware of any  other state in which  such a restrictive                                                               
definition  of  medical  emergency  exists and  may  not  survive                                                               
constitutional   scrutiny   under  our   express   constitutional                                                               
protections."   As that requirement  is currently written,  it is                                                               
not sufficient  that [there  is a  risk that  an impairment  of a                                                               
major bodily  function] be substantial and  irreversible, it must                                                               
also  create a  medical instability.   She  is not  entirely sure                                                               
what that  is, she remarked, nor  why it is necessary  to include                                                               
in the bill.   In response to a question,  she indicated that she                                                               
would be proposing an amendment to "strike that new language."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES,  referring  to   Section  3,  noted  that                                                               
proposed  AS  18.16.020(a)  says  in  part,  "A  person  may  not                                                               
knowingly  perform or  induce  an  abortion".   She  said she  is                                                               
wondering whether  that would include what  is sometimes referred                                                               
to as the [morning] after  pill, particularly given that Alaska's                                                               
statutory  definition  of "abortion"  is  extremely  broad.   She                                                               
indicated that her concern is  that the proposed provisions meant                                                               
to apply to abortion will also  be applied to what is basically a                                                               
dose  of  birth  control  taken   the  day  after  [a  woman  has                                                               
unprotected sex].                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:40:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her  understanding that proposed AS                                                               
18.16.020(a)(1) requires a 48-hour  waiting period after parental                                                               
consent has  been obtained.   She also offered  her understanding                                                               
that  "consent  waiting  periods"  are only  upheld  for  shorter                                                               
periods of  time and only when  there's an actual reason  for the                                                               
waiting period, but  there doesn't seem to be any  such reason in                                                               
this instance.  This seems to  impose quite a burden, both on the                                                               
parents  and on  the minor,  particularly if  they are  coming in                                                               
from rural  Alaska, since they  would then  have to pay  for food                                                               
and lodging for those additional  days, and when burdens are more                                                               
onerous on rural  Alaskans than on urban Alaskans,  that is often                                                               
grounds for equal  protection concerns.  There  just doesn't seem                                                               
to be any purpose behind  waiting that additional 48-hour period,                                                               
she remarked,  and it seems  to undermine the  parents' authority                                                               
even  though they  will have  just  been given  the authority  to                                                               
consent.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:41:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  characterized proposed  AS 18.16.020(a)(4)                                                               
as  being a  very narrow  exception,  because not  only does  the                                                               
minor have to  document that she is abused but  there also has to                                                               
be someone  - from a very  limited list of who  that person could                                                               
be - with personal knowledge of  the abuse.  She said she doesn't                                                               
know what  "personal knowledge  of the abuse"  means, or  how the                                                               
minor  will be  able to  meet the  burden of  getting someone  to                                                               
corroborate  the abuse.    Referring to  the  list of  acceptable                                                               
corroborators outlined in  proposed AS 18.16.020(a)(4)(B)(i)-(v),                                                               
she noted that it doesn't include  a sibling younger than the age                                                               
of 21, or an aunt, uncle, or  cousin, or a stepsibling.  She said                                                               
she finds  paragraph (4)  to be  a fairly  restrictive provision,                                                               
particularly given that  the minor must document the  abuse via a                                                               
notarized  statement, and  given  that  AS 44.50.062(5)  requires                                                               
somebody  who's   getting  something   notarized  to   either  be                                                               
personally known to the notary public or to produce government-                                                                 
issued picture  identification (ID) or government-issued  ID with                                                               
a signature  along with another  valid ID  with both a  photo and                                                               
signature  - a  lot of  minors simply  won't have  this level  of                                                               
documentation, and this  puts another burden on the  minor who is                                                               
trying to prove abuse.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES   noted  that  proposed   AS  18.16.020(b)                                                               
requires  the physician  himself/herself to  notify the  parents,                                                               
but  physicians are  very busy  people and  so most  other states                                                               
allow the  physician to  designate someone  in his/her  office to                                                               
notify the  parents.   In response  to a  question, she  said she                                                               
disagrees with  the notice requirement  in general.   Proposed AS                                                               
18.16.020(b)(1) - which pertains to  providing notice in person -                                                               
requires  the person  receiving the  notice to  present what  she                                                               
characterized as a fairly onerous  level of documentation proving                                                               
that  the  person  is  the child's  parent,  legal  guardian,  or                                                               
custodian;  the person  must not  only  show his/her  government-                                                               
issued ID,  but also documentation  of his/her  relationship with                                                               
the  minor, such  as the  minor's birth  certificate, or  a court                                                               
order of  adoption, guardianship,  or custodianship.   It  can be                                                               
difficult  to put  one's hands  on such  documents even  when not                                                               
working  under  the sort  of  time  constraints and  stress  that                                                               
accompany  an   unwanted  pregnancy;   this  requirement   is  an                                                               
additional burden and could cause an additional delay.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  noted that  proposed AS  18.16.020(b)(2) -                                                               
which pertains to providing notice  over the phone - requires the                                                               
physician to  review published telephone directories  in order to                                                               
verify that  they are  dialing the correct  number, but  the bill                                                               
doesn't clarify how many telephone  directories must be reviewed.                                                               
Furthermore,  the  physician  himself/herself  must  continue  to                                                               
initiate the  call in not  less than two-hour increments  for not                                                               
less than five attempts in a  24-hour period.  The physician will                                                               
have to  interrupt what he/she is  doing, and it is  unclear what                                                               
happens if he/she gets  caught up in a task and  it ends up being                                                               
more than two  hours between calls.  That seems  a little strict,                                                               
she remarked.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:48:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  noted that  proposed AS  18.16.020(c) says                                                               
that if providing "actual notice"  is unsuccessful, the physician                                                               
may provide  "constructive notice" - which  means mailing written                                                               
notice after  taking steps to  verify the correct address.   This                                                               
will add a lot of delay  because the physician must first attempt                                                               
to provide  actual notice.   Furthermore, notice, via one  of the                                                               
methods outlined  in the  bill, must be  provided to  the minor's                                                               
parent, legal guardian,  or custodian at least 48  hours prior to                                                               
the abortion.   She offered her belief that the  bill isn't clear                                                               
with  regard  to  whether simply  providing  constructive  notice                                                               
after all other attempts to  provide notice have failed meets the                                                               
bill's   consent  requirement.      Referring   to  proposed   AS                                                               
18.16.020(e)  -  which requires  the  physician  to preserve  the                                                               
products of  conception if the  pregnancy resulted  from criminal                                                               
sexual assault  - she opined  that as written, this  provision is                                                               
too broad and  too vague with regard to what  would be considered                                                               
the products  of conception, and  doesn't address what  the chain                                                               
of custody will  be for such evidence.  She  indicated that there                                                               
will  be an  amendment forthcoming  to clarify  what is  meant by                                                               
"products of conception".                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  referred to Section  8 - which adds  a new                                                               
paragraph  (5)  to AS  18.16.030(n)  and  pertains to  the  court                                                               
notifying minors seeking a judicial  bypass that they can request                                                               
the court to  provide them with an excuse from  school and direct                                                               
the school  to not notify  their parents  - and said  she doesn't                                                               
believe  this   provision  adequately  addresses  the   issue  of                                                               
confidentiality because  it almost  appears to require  the court                                                               
to tell  the school  why the  minor is  being excused,  and given                                                               
that there  are often  students working  in school  offices, this                                                               
could lead to  breaches in confidentiality.   Referring, then, to                                                               
Section 13, she said she is  not sure what documentation would be                                                               
required  of   a  minor   who  is   filing  a   petition  seeking                                                               
authorization  to consent  to an  abortion, because  the petition                                                               
must be under oath.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  said she  has a concern  about all  of the                                                               
proposed court rule  amendments.  Because only  a simple majority                                                               
of each body  is needed to pass the bill,  but two-thirds of each                                                               
body  is  needed to  adopt  the  court rule  amendments,  several                                                               
portions  of the  bill could  end up  being deleted  if the  bill                                                               
should  pass but  not  the  court rule  amendments.   This  could                                                               
result in a  bill that provides a judicial  bypass procedure with                                                               
regard to consent but not with  regard to notice, and there could                                                               
be some  situations in which it  will be very important  that the                                                               
parent not be notified that the minor is seeking an abortion.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:55:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, referring to Sections  16, said she is not                                                               
sure what an  "indirect court rule" is.  Referring  to Section 17                                                               
- the  severability clause -  she said she  is not sure  what the                                                               
court  will  actually  do,  particularly given  that  HB  364  is                                                               
remarkably similar  to the law  that the court just  struck down;                                                               
the court  might not  be willing  to sever  just portions  of the                                                               
bill.   Referring  to  Section  18 -  the  right of  intervention                                                               
clause -  she said she's  not ever seen  such a provision  and it                                                               
seems a  little strange  to allow members  of the  legislature to                                                               
intervene, as  a party, in  a court case.   Normally that  is the                                                               
DOL's role.   This provision  also says that bill  sponsors could                                                               
be  appointed to  intervene, but  it isn't  clear with  regard to                                                               
whether  bill  sponsors   who  are  no  longer   members  of  the                                                               
legislature  could  be  appointed to  represent  the  legislative                                                               
branch.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES,  referring to Section 9  - which precludes                                                               
a parent, legal  guardian, or custodian from  coercing a pregnant                                                               
minor  into  having  an  abortion  -  surmised  that  it  doesn't                                                               
preclude a parent,  legal guardian, or custodian  from coercing a                                                               
pregnant minor  to give  birth.   In response  to a  comment, she                                                               
opined that  parents shouldn't  be allowed  to coerce  a pregnant                                                               
minor  in  either  case.    Referring to  the  bill  in  general,                                                               
Representative Holmes again  noted that it is similar  to the law                                                               
that  the Alaska  Supreme Court  just  overturned.   Furthermore,                                                               
there is  a legal opinion from  the drafter in which  the drafter                                                               
stated that  she has substantial  reason to believe that  a state                                                               
court   in  Alaska   would  invalidate   at  least   the  consent                                                               
requirements under  HB 364  both on res  judicata grounds  and on                                                               
constitutional grounds.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said  she has every reason  to believe that                                                               
HB  364 is  unconstitutional  and that  the  legislature is  just                                                               
basically picking a  fight with the court, and  said she believes                                                               
that doing so is inappropriate.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS disagreed.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her belief  that HB 364 is the only                                                               
bill  that  requires both  notification  and  consent; "that's  a                                                               
little bit  odd, since  consent obviously  implies notification."                                                               
She  offered  her  understanding   that  the  legal  opinion,  in                                                               
addition,  characterizes HB  364 as  one  of the  most harsh  and                                                               
demanding  notification/consent  bills   [in  the  country],  and                                                               
opined that  it is  much harsher  than the  law that  has already                                                               
been  found   to  be  unconstitutional.     The   bill's  medical                                                               
exceptions, she also  opined, are overly restrictive,  and she is                                                               
concerned  about  some  of  the  delays,  and  about  the  equal-                                                               
protection issues arising from the  burdens being placed on rural                                                               
residents  in  particular.    In  response  to  a  question,  she                                                               
acknowledged that she doesn't like the bill.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES,  in  conclusion, said  she  has  concerns                                                               
about the bill  because it requires those minors  who are seeking                                                               
judicial bypass  to "go through  a lot  of very scary  steps" but                                                               
doesn't stipulate who will help them do so.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  pointed out  that  abortion  is terminal  for  the                                                               
fetus, and that he and  other committee members believe that they                                                               
are  simply protecting  the sanctity  of  life.   He opined  that                                                               
minors don't have the mental capacity  to be making a decision of                                                               
"this magnitude."                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
[Following  was a  brief discussion  regarding who  was available                                                               
for questions and how the committee would be proceeding.]                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:12:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  1,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
      Page 2, Line 6 Insert a period "." after "consents"                                                                     
     and delete the remainder of line 6 and lines 7 though                                                                      
     11.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  offered   that  the  presumption  that                                                               
Amendment 1 proposes to delete  is not necessary because language                                                               
on page  5, line 12, requires,  in the petition itself,  that the                                                               
minor   must  affirmatively   state  under   oath  that   she  is                                                               
unemancipated.   So there's no  need for the  presumption because                                                               
it's already, as a matter of law,  part of the proof - it's sworn                                                               
to  and it's  in the  petition; in  the law,  one doesn't  need a                                                               
presumption unless there is an absence of proof.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  opined that  the language Amendment  1 is                                                               
proposing to  delete is necessary  because language in  Section 3                                                               
requires either  that there be notice  or that a court  has given                                                               
authorization to have an abortion without consent.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked  that his  point  be  researched                                                               
further as the bill moves through the process.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then withdrew Amendment 1.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:16:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  2,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
      Page 2, Line 29 - Delete "medical instability caused                                                                    
     by a"                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  explained that  Amendment 2  addresses the                                                               
fact  that  under  the  bill  as currently  written,  it  is  not                                                               
sufficient that in a medical  emergency, a delay in performing an                                                               
abortion  would   create  a  serious  risk   of  substantial  and                                                               
irreversible  impairment  of  a  major  bodily  function  of  the                                                               
pregnant  minor,  but  the  delay  must  also  create  a  medical                                                               
instability.   She said she doesn't  know what that is,  and that                                                               
it  would  seem  to  her  that  a  substantial  and  irreversible                                                               
impairment  of a  major bodily  function is  enough without  also                                                               
requiring a  medical instability.   Again,  Representative Holmes                                                               
noted, the drafter,  in her legal opinion, said, "I  am not aware                                                               
of  any other  state in  which such  a restrictive  definition of                                                               
medical  emergency  exists  and may  not  survive  constitutional                                                               
scrutiny under our express constitutional protections."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  indicated that the provision  Amendment 2                                                               
is proposing  to alter  pertains to  medical emergencies  and the                                                               
goal of getting people stabilized.   The standard is a good-faith                                                               
effort, he remarked, and he is  looking at medical stability as a                                                               
part of that good-faith effort.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked  what the penalty is  for a violation                                                               
of this provision.   She reiterated that she doesn't  know what a                                                               
"medical instability" is.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that  [under AS 18.16.010(c)], a                                                               
violation would subject the physician to  a fine of not more than                                                               
$1,000, or a jail term of not more  than five years, or both.  He                                                               
added  that under  AS 18.16.010(e),  if a  physician violates  AS                                                               
18.16.010(a)(3), he/she would be  civilly liable for compensatory                                                               
and punitive damages.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said her point  is that [this provision] is                                                               
adding  another burden  and making  it very  restrictive; when  a                                                               
physician  is dealing  with a  teenager's medical  emergency, she                                                               
thinks  they  should  want  the  doctor erring  on  the  side  of                                                               
protecting the teenager rather than  worrying about spending time                                                               
in jail.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  indicated that  at issue is  the question                                                               
of whether there really is a medical emergency.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:21:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was   taken.    Representatives  Holmes  and                                                               
Gruenberg  voted  in  favor  of  Amendment  2.    Representatives                                                               
Dahlstrom, Coghill,  Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras  voted against it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  referred to Amendment 3  [a handwritten                                                               
amendment  which he  later noted  was  incomplete] and  indicated                                                               
that the  change it is proposing  would be that on  page 2, lines                                                               
27-30, all language  after the words, "necessary  to avert" would                                                               
be deleted  and replaced with the  words, "a serious risk  to the                                                               
minor's  health.";  proposed  AS 18.16.010(g)(3)  would  then  no                                                               
longer need  to be  divided into subparagraphs  (A) and  (B), and                                                               
would then read:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     "medical  emergency" means  a  condition  that, on  the                                                                    
     basis  of  the  physician's  or  surgeon's  good  faith                                                                    
     clinical   judgment,   so   complicates   the   medical                                                                    
     condition  of  the  pregnant minor  that  an  immediate                                                                    
     abortion  of  the  minor's pregnancy  is  necessary  to                                                                    
     avert a serious risk to the minor's health.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:22:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN  G.  CLARKSON,  Esq.,  Attorney   at  Law,  Brena,  Bell  &                                                               
Clarkson,  PC, opined  that the  change proposed  by Amendment  3                                                               
would result  in language that  is much vaguer than  the [bill's]                                                               
current language.  He went on to say:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The language with respect  to "medical instability" and                                                                    
     "substantial  and irreversible  impairment  of a  major                                                                    
     bodily function",  those are terms of  medical art that                                                                    
     were testified  to by emergency room  physicians in the                                                                    
     parental consent case.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN and REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON opined  that the bill's current  language is clearer                                                               
because it  uses medical  terms of  art that  doctors understand,                                                               
and  the entire  provision is  premised upon  the doctor's  good-                                                               
faith, subjective clinical judgment.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  noted that  the handwritten  version of                                                               
Amendment 3 is  missing the language that is to  be inserted, and                                                               
therefore needs to be altered  to reflect his earlier description                                                               
of it.   There  being no  objection, Amendment  3 was  amended in                                                               
that fashion.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON, in  response  to a  question,  indicated that  his                                                               
comments  still apply  because  the medical  terms  of art  would                                                               
still be deleted.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  - referring to Amendment  3, as amended                                                               
- said:                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Doctors,  physicians,  physician  assistants,  and  the                                                                    
     medical   community,   every    day,   determine   what                                                                    
     constitutes a  serious risk to the  minor's health, and                                                                    
     this is  a medical decision,  and it is  something that                                                                    
     needs to be  made on the spot.  We  are legislators, we                                                                    
     are not right there at  the scene of the emergency, and                                                                    
     this gives  the necessary  discretion to the  doctor to                                                                    
     assess whether there is a  sufficiently serious risk to                                                                    
     the  minor's  health  that they  have  to  perform  the                                                                    
     abortion right there  and there's not time  to do other                                                                    
     things.  This is just common sense kind of medicine.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that the  term "minor's health" is far                                                               
more subjective  than the term  "minor's death"; "health"  can be                                                               
defined in a  number of ways, and therefore he  thinks "death" is                                                               
the better term.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Gruenberg  and                                                               
Holmes   voted   in   favor   of   Amendment   3,   as   amended.                                                               
Representatives  Dahlstrom, Coghill,  Samuels,  Lynn, and  Ramras                                                               
voted against it.  Therefore,  Amendment 3, as amended, failed by                                                               
a vote of 2-5.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:26:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  4,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, Line 6 - After abortion delete "not less than                                                                    
     48 hours before the abortion is performed"                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES  offered  her   belief  that  the  48-hour                                                               
provision  undermines   the  parents'   authority  to   make  the                                                               
decision, because  it's making them  wait an additional  48 hours                                                               
even when they do consent.   She also offered her belief that the                                                               
provision has  implications for rural  girls because  it requires                                                               
them  and their  parents  to  stay in  a  city  longer, at  great                                                               
expense, without there  being any real reason for  them having to                                                               
wait  those  extra  days.    She  asked  the  committee  to  pass                                                               
Amendment 4.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL,   pointing  out   that  what   is  being                                                               
discussed is  the termination of  a pregnancy, opined that  a 48-                                                               
hour waiting period is well  within reason, given that there will                                                               
probably be  some type of  waiting period,  since the goal  is to                                                               
get people communicating [with each other].                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  said she  is a  big supporter  of parental                                                               
involvement in  children and teenagers' decisions  whenever it is                                                               
safe.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was   taken.    Representatives  Holmes  and                                                               
Gruenberg  voted  in  favor  of  Amendment  4.    Representatives                                                               
Dahlstrom, Coghill,  Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras  voted against it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:28:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  5,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, delete  Lines 15-28.  Insert "a minor  who is a                                                                  
     victim of  physical abuse,  sexual abuse,  or emotional                                                                    
     abuse is not required to  give notice or obtain consent                                                                    
     when such  abuse is documented  in a writing  signed by                                                                    
     the minor under penalty of perjury."                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.   He indicated that  it won't be                                                               
that hard  for a minor to  produce a notarized statement  for the                                                               
court,  and expressed  favor with  keeping the  list outlined  in                                                               
proposed AS 18.16.020(a)(4) as is.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out,  however, that AS 09.63.020                                                               
-  which pertains  to oaths,  certifications, notarizations,  and                                                               
verifications - allows a document  to be signed "under penalty of                                                               
perjury", and  it doesn't have  to be done  in front of  a notary                                                               
public  if  the  certification  states  the  date  and  place  of                                                               
execution,  the  fact that  a  notary  public or  other  official                                                               
empowered to administer the oaths  is unavailable, and the words,                                                               
"I certify under penalty of  perjury that the foregoing is true."                                                               
He indicated that such a certification  is to be used only when a                                                               
notary public is unavailable.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
4:31:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PAMELA  FINLEY,  Revisor  of   Statutes,  Legislative  Legal  and                                                               
Research Division, Legislative Affairs  Agency (LAA), in response                                                               
to  a question,  after relaying  that  she would  be speaking  on                                                               
behalf of the  drafter, Jean Mischel, explained that  a minor can                                                               
certainly sign  a notarized  document; a  minor can't  do certain                                                               
things, such as  create contracts, but a minor -  if he/she is of                                                               
sufficient age, usually seven years old  or so - can testify in a                                                               
hearing and thus is capable of  taking an oath.  She posited that                                                               
if a minor is capable of taking  an oath, he/she ought to be able                                                               
to sign a notarized document.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG noted  that there  was a  supreme court                                                               
case wherein the  witness to the murder of one  parent by another                                                               
was a  four-year-old, and [the  witness's testimony]  was allowed                                                               
because the  witness could communicate adequately  and understood                                                               
the duty to tell the truth.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS  asked  whether,  if the  minor  signs  a                                                               
document  stating she  is the  victim of  abuse, the  court would                                                               
then be obligated to act to address the issue of the abuse.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said yes,  because  it  would be  like                                                               
filing a complaint in court -  the procedure outlined in the bill                                                               
is commenced by the filing of a sworn petition under oath.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS  surmised,  then,  that  law  enforcement                                                               
would then become involved.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL offered  his understanding  that one  can                                                               
get a  statement notarized if  one has sufficient ID,  and opined                                                               
that  it is  important  to have  corroboration  that physical  or                                                               
sexual abuse of  a minor is occurring.  Referring  to proposed AS                                                               
18.16.020(a)(4)(B), he characterized those  listed therein as the                                                               
minor's asset  base, and noted  that in  many other areas  of the                                                               
law, it  has already been  decided that minors  need help.   If a                                                               
minor  has made  a statement  that  abuse is  occurring and  that                                                               
abuse is then  corroborated, then a minor does  not need parental                                                               
consent to obtain an abortion.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  pointed out that if  a minor is required  to sign a                                                               
document "under  penalty of  perjury" but  no abuse  has actually                                                               
occurred,  the minor  will have  then committed  a criminal  act;                                                               
therefore, he is inclined to vote against Amendment 5.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES noted  that the  provision Amendment  5 is                                                               
proposing  to alter  is dealing  with the  most vulnerable  of an                                                               
already vulnerable group  - these girls have been  abused and are                                                               
now pregnant, possibly as a result of that abuse.  She added:                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     We all know  that abuse in this state  and other states                                                                    
     is underreported,  largely because of fear.   We're now                                                                    
     dealing with  some of the  situations that some  of our                                                                    
     testifiers, I  think, were describing earlier:   you've                                                                    
     got, probably, a very scared  teen who may be scared of                                                                    
     [her] ...  family, and I'm  thinking that  knowing that                                                                    
     [she's]  ... got  to comply  with this  [paragraph] (4)                                                                    
     has  got  to scare  the  living  daylights out  of  ...                                                                    
     [her].   And  it's  going to  keep delaying  decisions.                                                                    
     And I'm  just afraid  that the more  burdens we  put on                                                                    
     them in  that situation, the  more often times  you end                                                                    
     up  with the  person  throwing [herself]  ... down  the                                                                    
     stairs or tying to go through more drastic measures.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     So  I would  support [the  proposed change],  because I                                                                    
     think  the amendment  is a  little bit  less burdensome                                                                    
     and a  little bit less  scary. ... This  statement will                                                                    
     still  go  to the  police,  it  will  still go  to  the                                                                    
     courts, it  will still be  investigated, we  will still                                                                    
     get help, but I think it's  a little bit less scary and                                                                    
     you're more  likely to have  people reach out  for that                                                                    
     help.  So I support the amendment.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL   said  he   agrees  that   a  vulnerable                                                               
youngster "is  going to jump."   However, he opined,  Amendment 5                                                               
isn't  providing  any  direction, whereas  the  current  language                                                               
specifically  requires the  minor  to also  get  someone else  to                                                               
substantiate her claim.   "To characterize the courts  as a place                                                               
where you  can't get help in  our society, I think  generally has                                                               
been true  in some areas  but is not true  in this area,  and the                                                               
culture  change  has  to  happen where  people,  when  they  need                                                               
intervention in  their life,  can find  those places,"  he added.                                                               
He expressed a preference for  the language currently in proposed                                                               
AS 18.16.020(a)(4).                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:38:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG offered  his  belief  that Amendment  5                                                               
does three things.   One, it eliminates the  requirement that the                                                               
declaration of  abuse be made in  front of a notary  public; two,                                                               
it eliminates the  requirement that the declaration  must also be                                                               
signed by another  person with personal knowledge of  the abuse -                                                               
often when there  is abuse by a parent, no  one else has personal                                                               
knowledge  of it,  so  this requirement  would  be impossible  to                                                               
comply  with; and  three, it  specifically provides  an exemption                                                               
from notifying the  parent and obtaining consent.   On the latter                                                               
point, proposed AS 18.16.020(a)(4)  as currently written requires                                                               
the physician  to notify the  perpetrator that his/her  victim is                                                               
seeking an abortion, and doesn't give the victim any protection.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL disagreed.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  acknowledged Representative Gruenberg's  point, but                                                               
reiterated  that  Amendment 5  could  subject  the minor  to  the                                                               
charge of  perjury.   He suggested  to the  bill sponsor  that at                                                               
some point he address [Representative Gruenberg's point].                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was   taken.    Representatives  Holmes  and                                                               
Gruenberg  voted  in  favor  of  Amendment  5.    Representatives                                                               
Coghill, Samuels,  Lynn, Dahlstrom, and Ramras  voted against it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:40:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  6,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, Line 29 - After "(a)" insert "(1)"                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG -  suggesting  that  Amendment 6  might                                                               
need to be  amended - pointed out that paragraphs  (2) and (3) of                                                               
AS 18.16.020(a)  stipulate that the  minor doesn't  need parental                                                               
consent,  and so  under those  paragraphs, the  physician needn't                                                               
give notice  as outlined in  AS 18.16.020(b); offered  his belief                                                               
that it is  not the sponsor's intent to require  the physician to                                                               
give notice  when subsection (a)(4)  applies; and opined  that at                                                               
the very  least, something should  be done to ensure  that notice                                                               
is not required when either paragraph (2) or (3) apply.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   HOLMES   concurred,   and  surmised   that   not                                                               
specifying that subsection (b) pertains  only to paragraph (1) of                                                               
subsection (a) is merely a  drafting error, since the whole point                                                               
of  paragraphs (2),  (3), and  (4) is  to bypass  the notice  and                                                               
consent requirements of the bill.   Amendment 6 will simply allow                                                               
subsection (b)  to make sense,  and is not a  substantive change,                                                               
she opined.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  suggested  a conceptual  amendment  to                                                               
Amendment  6 such  that language  be  added to  paragraph (4)  to                                                               
clarify, at least conceptually, that  when it applies, notice and                                                               
consent is not required -  language similar to what's included in                                                               
paragraphs (2)  and (3) such  that the  minor can consent  to her                                                               
own abortion "without  notice and consent of  a parent, guardian,                                                               
or custodian".   Currently,  paragraph (4) is  not clear  on that                                                               
point, and  one wouldn't want  to give notice to  the perpetrator                                                               
of the abuse.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL indicated  agreement with  the intent  of                                                               
adding such  language to paragraph  (4), and that he  agrees with                                                               
Amendment 6 as currently written.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG, in  response to  a comment,  indicated                                                               
that he is amenable to addressing those two points separately.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Amendment 6.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 6 was adopted.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:44:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion  to adopt  [Conceptual]                                                               
Amendment 7, to  add to paragraph (4) - somewhere  on lines 15-18                                                               
of page  3 -  language along  the lines  of, "without  notice and                                                               
consent  of  a  parent,  guardian, or  custodian  and  the  minor                                                               
consents to the abortion".                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL objected,  and opined  that because  that                                                               
language is  already contained in  paragraph (3) and  is followed                                                               
by "; or", the concept already applies to paragraph (4).                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  pointed out that that  same language is                                                               
also included in paragraph 2, and  said he is proposing that that                                                               
language be inserted into paragraph  (4) as well.  Representative                                                               
Gruenberg asked  Representative Coghill  whether he  would prefer                                                               
to address this issue at another time.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL indicated  that he  wants to  ensure that                                                               
the language fits.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES surmised  that paragraph  (1) is  the only                                                               
paragraph  in AS  18.16.020(a) which  requires  the physician  to                                                               
give  notice, and  that it  would be  consistent to  clarify that                                                               
point  by adding  the aforementioned  language to  paragraph (4),                                                               
particularly  given  that  it pertains  to  situations  involving                                                               
abuse.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE    GRUENBERG   acknowledged    that   [Conceptual]                                                               
Amendment 7 may  be overbroad because it might not  be the parent                                                               
who  is the  perpetrator of  the  abuse, and  indicated that  his                                                               
intent in  offering [Conceptual]  Amendment 7  is to  ensure that                                                               
the perpetrator  of the abuse not  be notified that the  minor is                                                               
seeking an abortion.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then withdrew [Conceptual] Amendment 7.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:47:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  8,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page  3, Line  31 -  After the  first use  of the  term                                                                    
     "abortion"  insert "or  the  physician's designee"  and                                                                    
     after the second use of  the term "abortion" insert "or                                                                    
     the physician's designee"                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES,   remarking  that  physicians   are  busy                                                               
people,  relayed   that  she   has  been   told  that   in  other                                                               
jurisdictions which require notice to  be given to the parent, it                                                               
is customary to allow the  physician to designate someone to give                                                               
the notice.   She  offered her  hope that  a physician  in Alaska                                                               
would  be allowed  to designate  such  a task  to an  appropriate                                                               
person  within his/her  office,  particularly  given the  onerous                                                               
requirement of having to initiate the  call in not less than two-                                                               
hour  increments for  not less  than five  attempts in  a 24-hour                                                               
period.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG,  by way of  analogy, noted that  when a                                                               
physician prescribes medication for  a patient, the physician has                                                               
someone  on  his/her  staff  phone   the  prescription  into  the                                                               
pharmacy.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:48:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL   said  he  wants  to   ensure  that  the                                                               
physician is  the one in  charge of providing notice,  and opined                                                               
that  providing notice  about  an  abortion is  not  the same  as                                                               
prescribing medication.   He expressed  reluctance in  allowing a                                                               
physician  to designate  the notification  task to  office staff;                                                               
instead, the physician  must be the one to make  contact with the                                                               
parent.  He  said he doesn't view the  requirements stipulated in                                                               
subsection (b)(1)-(2) as onerous.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG suggested  as an  alternative that  the                                                               
designee be allowed  to place the calls and then  when the parent                                                               
actually  answers, the  doctor  can  then speak  to  parent.   As                                                               
currently written, the doctor himself/herself  must be the one to                                                               
place the calls, and that's really onerous, he opined.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL   characterized  that  as   a  reasonable                                                               
alternative, but stressed  that he doesn't want  to simply excuse                                                               
the doctor from making contact with the parent.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES  indicated  that such  an  alternative  is                                                               
acceptable to her.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 8.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:51:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  made  a  motion  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 9,  to alter proposed  AS 18.16.0202(b)  as appropriate                                                               
such  that the  physician or  his/her designee  may initiate  the                                                               
call but the  physician himself/herself must be the  one to speak                                                               
to the parent when the parent  answers the phone.  There being no                                                               
objection, Conceptual Amendment 9 was adopted.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:52:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a motion  to adopt  Amendment 10,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4,  Line 13 -  Delete after "telephone"  "but" and                                                                  
     insert   after  "physician"   "shall  make   reasonable                                                                    
     efforts to  comply with this  subsection.   A physician                                                                    
     that  makes reasonable  attempts  to  comply with  this                                                                    
     subsection  shall not  be held  liable  for failure  to                                                                    
     notify."  Delete the rest of line 13-16.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  indicated that  the need  for Amendment                                                               
10  is  partially  alleviated  by   the  adoption  of  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 9.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to Amendment 10.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG,  referring to the requirement  that the                                                               
physician initiate the call in  not less than two-hour increments                                                               
for not less than five attempts  in a 24-hour period, pointed out                                                               
that mandating a specific number  of calls will be burdensome for                                                               
small offices  - particularly those  with limited staff -  and so                                                               
he  is  suggesting  the  alternative   of  simply  requiring  the                                                               
physician to  make reasonable efforts  to comply with  the notice                                                               
provision.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  expressed a preference for  waiting until                                                               
Conceptual  Amendment  9  is  incorporated  into  the  bill,  and                                                               
posited   that  Conceptual   Amendment  9   adequately  addresses                                                               
concerns  regarding  the  requirements outlined  in  proposed  AS                                                               
18.16.020(b).                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS agreed.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 10.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:54:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a motion  to adopt  Amendment 11,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, Line 23 - After "mail" insert ", restricted to                                                                   
     addressee only"                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  pointed out that certified  mail can go                                                               
to anybody at  the address it's mailed to,  including people that                                                               
shouldn't receive  such a  notice.  Amendment  11 is  a technical                                                               
amendment that would address this problem.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 11 was adopted.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:55:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a motion  to adopt  Amendment 12,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
         Page 4, Line 29 - Delete "products" and insert                                                                       
     "evidence"                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG offered  his  belief  that the  correct                                                               
term of  art to  use is  "evidence of  conception" as  opposed to                                                               
"products   of  conception";   this  provision   -  proposed   AS                                                               
18.16.0202(e)  - is  referencing material  that would  go to  law                                                               
enforcement officials for use in a legal proceeding.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  argued that  what is  being aborted  is a                                                               
product  of conception,  and  only  the court  would  view it  as                                                               
evidence.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG  pointed   out,  however,   that  this                                                               
provision  will be  read primarily  by those  collecting material                                                               
for use in court.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  suggested as an  alternative amending  Amendment 12                                                               
such that  the language on  page 29 would  be changed to  read in                                                               
part, "products of conception as evidence".                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN suggested instead  amending Amendment 12 such                                                               
that  the words,  "and evidence"  would be  added after  the word                                                               
"products"  on line  29; the  language would  then read  in part,                                                               
"products of conception and evidence".                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  indicated that he would  be amenable to                                                               
that wording as an amendment to Amendment 12.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS [although no formal  motion was made] announced that                                                               
the amendment to Amendment 12 was adopted.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:57:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CLOVER  SIMON,  MSW,  Chief   Executive  Officer  (CEO),  Planned                                                               
Parenthood of Alaska (PPA),  asked Representative Coghill whether                                                               
it  would  be  acceptable  to  him if  only  enough  material  is                                                               
retained  to establish  the deoxyribonucleic  acid  (DNA) of  the                                                               
fetus, as opposed to retaining all products of conception.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said no, but  added that he would give the                                                               
matter further consideration.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  asked whether  law enforcement  will have                                                               
procedures  in place  to deal  with the  aforementioned material,                                                               
and asked  Representative Coghill what  he would want  the doctor                                                               
to do.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL   offered  his  understanding   that  the                                                               
capital  budget  includes  funding  to create  more  storage  for                                                               
evidence, including evidence in sexual abuse of a minor cases.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  asked how the doctor  would interact with                                                               
law enforcement, and what the chain of custody will be.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered  his understanding that procedures                                                               
are already in  place, but acknowledged that "this"  would be new                                                               
[to  law enforcement].   He  expressed a  preference for  keeping                                                               
Amendment 12,  as amended,  as is, and  opined that  storing more                                                               
evidence won't be problematic.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES expressed  a  preference  for Ms.  Simon's                                                               
suggestion - keeping only enough  material to obtain a DNA sample                                                               
so as to prove the abuse.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  pointed out that keeping  all products of                                                               
conception would ensure that enough evidence is retained.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Lynn,  Holmes,                                                               
Gruenberg,  Dahlstrom,  Coghill, and  Ramras  voted  in favor  of                                                               
Amendment 12,  as amended.  Representative  Samuels voted against                                                               
it.  Therefore,  Amendment 12, as amended, was adopted  by a vote                                                               
of 6-1.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  said he still has  concerns regarding DNA                                                               
and  chain of  custody  issues, since  law  enforcement won't  be                                                               
present at the  abortion; "you're going to end up  with a problem                                                               
unless it gets addressed."                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
5:02:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a motion  to adopt  Amendment 13,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 5, Lines 20-21 - Delete "a pattern of"                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG opined  that  it will  be difficult  to                                                               
determine  whether  there  is, quote,  "a  pattern  of  emotional                                                               
abuse"; it  will be  simpler to  just not  include the  words, "a                                                               
pattern of" and thus avoid arguments based on semantics.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that  the term "emotional abuse" by                                                               
itself  is too  broad,  and  that establishing  that  there is  a                                                               
pattern of emotional abuse can be done in a variety of ways.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG suggested  as  an alternative  amending                                                               
Amendment 13 such  that the word, "serous" replace  the words, "a                                                               
pattern  of".   There  could  be  one  instance of  very  serious                                                               
emotional battering,  and he does  not want to require  the minor                                                               
to have to show several instances of emotional abuse, he added.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  opined that  the current language  of, "a                                                               
pattern of  emotional abuse" is  simply asking the minor  to show                                                               
that  there  is  a  reason  why  parental  consent  shouldn't  be                                                               
required.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was   taken.    Representatives  Holmes  and                                                               
Gruenberg voted in favor of  Amendment 13.  Representatives Lynn,                                                               
Dahlstrom,  Coghill,  Samuels,  and   Ramras  voted  against  it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 13 failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
5:05:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a motion  to adopt  Amendment 14,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, Line 14 - Delete comma after "court"                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that  including the comma on line                                                               
14 is a typographical error.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  then made  a motion to  amend Amendment                                                               
14  such that  the  comma on  page  7, line  15,  after the  word                                                               
"jurisdiction",  also  be deleted.    There  being no  objection,                                                               
Amendment 14 was amended.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  announced  that  Amendment  14,  as  amended,  was                                                               
adopted.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
5:06:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a motion  to adopt  Amendment 15,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 16 - After section insert "and to get an                                                                    
     abortion"                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  noted  that the  current  language  of                                                               
proposed AS  18.16.030(n)(5) provides that the  minor may request                                                               
the court  to issue an  order excusing  her from school  only for                                                               
the  purpose of  attending the  judicial bypass  proceedings, but                                                               
not also for  the purpose of obtaining the abortion  if the court                                                               
authorizes  her to  consent  to an  abortion.   He  characterized                                                               
Amendment 15 as a technical amendment.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  indicated   that  AS  18.16.030(n)  only                                                               
speaks  to  what  forms  and  information  the  court  must  make                                                               
available to minors seeking judicial bypass.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG said  he assumes  it is  Representative                                                               
Coghill's intent that  if the court issues  the order authorizing                                                               
the minor to  get an abortion without parental  consent, that the                                                               
court  should also  excuse  the  minor from  school  in order  to                                                               
obtain the abortion.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES, in  response to  comments, surmised  that                                                               
Amendment 15 is simply saying  that once the court has authorized                                                               
the minor  to obtain an  abortion without parental  consent, then                                                               
the court should - in addition  to directing the school to excuse                                                               
the minor  in order that she  may attend the court  proceedings -                                                               
direct  the school  to excuse  the minor  in order  that she  may                                                               
obtain the abortion.  Without  the adoption of Amendment 15, when                                                               
the minor misses school in order  to get the abortion, the school                                                               
could notify the parents that their child has missed school.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG   said   he  would   like   to   amend                                                               
Amendment 15.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  DAHLSTROM  asked why  an  abused  child would  be                                                               
allowed to go back into the home where she is being abused.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
5:10:14 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG suggested  amending  Amendment 15  such                                                               
that the  [words], "and  [to get an  abortion]" be  replaced with                                                               
the words, "to get the court-ordered abortion".                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  argued against  such a change  because the                                                               
court wouldn't be ordering an abortion.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS   suggested  using  the   words,  "court-                                                               
approved" instead.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  expressed disfavor  with  Representative                                                               
Gruenberg's suggestion and with Amendment 15.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that  if the court authorizes the                                                               
minor to get an abortion  without parental consent, then proposed                                                               
AS  18.16.030(n) should  also contain  a  clause that  stipulates                                                               
that the court may order the  school to also excuse the minor for                                                               
that abortion procedure.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed understanding of that concept.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 15.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
5:12:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  made  a  motion  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 16  such that  on page  7, line  16, language  be added                                                               
stipulating that  if the court  allows the abortion, it  can also                                                               
direct  the school  to  allow the  minor to  be  excused for  the                                                               
abortion  procedure.    There   being  no  objection,  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 16 was adopted.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
5:12:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a motion  to adopt  Amendment 17,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
      Page 7, Line 21 - Delete "parent, legal guardian, or                                                                    
     custodian of a minor" and insert "person"                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  - noting that proposed  AS 18.16.035(a)                                                               
prohibits a parent, legal guardian,  or custodian from coercing a                                                               
minor into  having an  abortion -  opined that  no one  should be                                                               
allowed to coerce a minor.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES agreed.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  said he agrees  with the concept  that it                                                               
wouldn't be proper for anybody to  coerce [a minor into having an                                                               
abortion].                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it seems  to him that no one should                                                               
be allowed  to coerce someone  to either  have an abortion  or to                                                               
have the  child - there shouldn't  be any coercion going  on.  He                                                               
indicated that he wishes to address  three points:  who should be                                                               
prohibited,  what  should  be  prohibited,   and  who  should  be                                                               
protected.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether  Amendment 17 would protect the                                                               
unborn child.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL and CHAIR RAMRAS said it would.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL said  he would  always agree  that nobody                                                               
should  ever  coerce  somebody,  but  is  not  sure  what  effect                                                               
adoption  of  Amendment  17  will have  on  other  provisions  of                                                               
statute or  whether the new  language would still fit  within the                                                               
framework of the parental consent statute.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, in response  to comments, said she doesn't                                                               
think anybody should be coercing [another].                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed, and removed his objection.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 17 was adopted.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
5:17:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion  to adopt Amendment 18, to                                                               
delete the words  "a minor" on page 7, line  21, and replace them                                                               
with the  words, "another person".   Given that Amendment  17 has                                                               
been  adopted,  the adoption  of  Amendment  18 would  result  in                                                               
proposed  AS 18.16.035(a)  reading:   "A  person  may not  coerce                                                               
another person who is pregnant to have an abortion."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out  that proposed AS 18.16.035 is                                                               
all  about minors,  and said  that  although he  agrees with  the                                                               
concept embodied in Amendment 18, he  would be objecting to it in                                                               
order to keep the language focused on minors.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken.  Representative Gruenberg  voted in                                                               
favor  of  Amendment  18.    Representatives  Holmes,  Dahlstrom,                                                               
Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras  voted against it.  Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 18 failed by a vote of 1-6.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  said that although  she likes the  idea of                                                               
broadening  the  restriction on  coercion,  this  issue might  be                                                               
better addressed at another time.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
5:21:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a motion  to adopt  Amendment 19,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, Line 22 - Before the period insert "or to bear                                                                   
     a child"                                                                                                                   
     Page 7, Line 25 - After "abortion" insert "or to bear                                                                    
     a child"                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  he  doesn't  want  any  coercion                                                               
occurring "on either side."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   COGHILL  said   he   agrees,   but  objects   to                                                               
Amendment 19 because  the issue  pertains to judicial  bypass for                                                               
an abortion.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
5:22:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Gruenberg  and                                                               
Holmes  voted   in  favor  of  Amendment   19.    Representatives                                                               
Dahlstrom, Coghill,  Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras  voted against it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 19 failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a motion  to adopt  Amendment 20,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 10, Lines 26-31.  Delete Sec. 18.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  - noting that  Section 18 pertains  to the                                                               
proposed  right of  intervention -  said she  has problems,  both                                                               
philosophically and technically, with  the concept that a sponsor                                                               
or  cosponsor   of  this  legislation  could   intervene  in  any                                                               
forthcoming  court   case  that's   based  on   a  constitutional                                                               
challenge.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  surmised  that  even if  Section  18  is                                                               
removed,  the legislature  wouldn't be  relinquishing any  of its                                                               
rights, and indicated agreement  that the language regarding bill                                                               
sponsors/cosponsors could be problematic.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   COGHILL  indicated   that  he'd   suggested  the                                                               
language  initially so  that people  would be  reminded that  the                                                               
legislature   would  be   following  what   happens  with   [this                                                               
legislation].                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
5:25:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  explained that  under the  Alaska Rules                                                               
of Civil  Procedure, there is  a rule pertaining  to intervention                                                               
as  a  matter of  right,  and  a  rule pertaining  to  permissive                                                               
intervention.    The  legislature  has the  right  to  file,  via                                                               
Legislative Counsel, a  request to intervene, but  would not have                                                               
any standing  to intervene as  a matter  of right.   As currently                                                               
drafted, [Section  18] would limit  the right of  intervention to                                                               
only  the  sponsors  and  cosponsors  of  the  legislation.    He                                                               
suggested  that   the  legislature   shouldn't  [impose   such  a                                                               
limitation on itself].                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS objected,  and  posited that  a right  of                                                               
intervention provision  should be included in  more bills, though                                                               
the right  should pertain to  the entire legislature  rather than                                                               
just  individual members.   He  then removed  his objection,  but                                                               
opined  that the  legislature should  assert  its rights  against                                                               
both the executive branch and the judicial branch.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 20 was adopted.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
5:26:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG referred  to  Conceptual Amendment  21,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
      Page 9, Line 26 - delete "clear and convincing" and                                                                       
     insert "a preponderance of the"                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
       AS 18.16.030(e) is amended by deleting "clear and                                                                        
     convincing" and inserting "a preponderance of the"                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
       AS 18.16.030(f) is amended by deleting "clear and                                                                        
     convincing' and inserting "preponderance of the"                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  explained that Conceptual  Amendment 21                                                               
changes  the  evidence  standard  used  by  the  court  to  grant                                                               
judicial  bypass   from  clear  and  convincing   evidence  to  a                                                               
preponderance of the evidence, and  it does so in subsections (e)                                                               
and (f)  of AS 18.16.030  and conformingly  in Rule 20(3)  of the                                                               
Alaska Probate Rules.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  made  a  motion  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 21.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response  to a question, offered his                                                               
understanding that the evidence  standard of clear and convincing                                                               
evidence  means that  one would  be left  with a  firm conviction                                                               
that the party  should prevail, and is the  highest standard used                                                               
in civil litigation.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   COGHILL   -    noting   that   in   emancipation                                                               
proceedings,  the evidence  standard  of a  preponderance of  the                                                               
evidence is used  - opined that the higher standard  of clear and                                                               
convincing  evidence  should be  used  when  what's at  issue  is                                                               
whether to terminate the life of the unborn.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  argued that if Conceptual  Amendment 21                                                               
is  not  adopted, a  lawyer  could  simply  tell a  minor  client                                                               
seeking an  abortion to just  get emancipated first and  then get                                                               
the abortion.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
5:30:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  asked whether a  minor would still have  to satisfy                                                               
all the provisions  of the [proposed] judicial  bypass statute if                                                               
the evidence standard were to be changed.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  offered his  belief that she  would, that                                                               
the court  did address the  issue of evidence standard,  and that                                                               
the proposed notice and consent  provision contains a standard of                                                               
clear and convincing evidence.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.   CLARKSON,  in   response   to  a   question,  offered   his                                                               
understanding that the standard  of clear and convincing evidence                                                               
would  apply  in  a  judicial  bypass  proceeding,  that  such  a                                                               
standard is used  in nearly every other [similar]  statute in the                                                               
country,  and that  such  a  proceeding is  ex  parte  - with  no                                                               
opposing  side testifying.   This  type of  proceeding terminates                                                               
parental rights with regard to abortion.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  again  argued  that  if  the  evidence                                                               
standard  of clear  and convincing  evidence is  found to  be too                                                               
onerous, then  a lawyer will  simply advise his/her  minor client                                                               
who's seeking an abortion to just get emancipated first.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON noted  that a parent gets notice  of an emancipation                                                               
proceeding.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  pointed out, however, that  even though                                                               
the parent  gets notice  of the  emancipation proceeding,  if the                                                               
court  finds  the  minor  is   mature  enough  to  warrant  being                                                               
emancipated, emancipation will be granted regardless.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON,  in response  to a  question and  comments, offered                                                               
his  understanding  that  the  evidence  standard  of  clear  and                                                               
convincing would not apply if  the minor provides the doctor with                                                               
documentation,  as  outlined  in  AS  18.16.020(a)(4),  that  her                                                               
parents  are abusing  her,  because  then she  need  never go  to                                                               
court.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:34:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. FINLEY noted  that AS 18.16.020(a)(4) doesn't  pertain to the                                                               
judicial bypass procedure, though AS 18.16.020(a)(2) and (3) do.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   also  pointed   out  that   under  AS                                                               
18.16.030(f), if  a minor is  seeking a judicial bypass  under AS                                                               
18.16.030(b)(4)(B) -  which pertains  to abuse  by the  parents -                                                               
then an evidence  standard of clear and  convincing evidence will                                                               
be used by the court.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that that is as it should be.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was   taken.    Representatives  Holmes  and                                                               
Gruenberg   voted   in   favor  of   Conceptual   Amendment   21.                                                               
Representatives  Dahlstrom, Coghill,  Samuels,  Lynn, and  Ramras                                                               
voted against it.   Therefore, Conceptual Amendment  21 failed by                                                               
a vote of 2-5.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
5:36:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  moved to report  HB 364, as  amended, out                                                               
of   committee   with    individual   recommendations   and   the                                                               
accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.   She opined that  there is still                                                               
more work to  be done on the  bill, and that the  bill won't help                                                               
communication  between parents  and  their  children but  instead                                                               
will place an onerous burden on  those teenagers who are the most                                                               
vulnerable and will increase their health risks.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN relayed  that  just prior  to this  meeting,                                                               
he'd received  call from a  woman who  supports HB 364  and who'd                                                               
had an abortion  without telling her parents but  then wished she                                                               
had.    Acknowledging  that  he  is prolife  and  that  the  bill                                                               
addresses the  issue of abortion, he  said that for him  the bill                                                               
has more to do with limiting  the court from legislating from the                                                               
bench, and with parental rights.  He went on to say:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Without  this  bill,  parents  are  irrelevant  to  the                                                                    
     child's  decision,   to  a  decision  that   cannot  be                                                                    
     reversed.   In my worldview,  children are a  gift from                                                                    
     god  entrusted to  the  care of  parents  for a  proper                                                                    
     upbringing.  Children don't  belong to Washington D.C.,                                                                    
     children  don't   belong  to  Juneau,   [and]  children                                                                    
     certainly  don't belong  to the  Alaska Supreme  court;                                                                    
     parents [and  no one else]  are responsible  for caring                                                                    
     for  and  for educating  their  children  and ...  that                                                                    
     includes education on all aspects of abortion.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Sometimes  the government  gets things  backwards [and]                                                                    
     believes  the parents  are somehow  responsible to  the                                                                    
     government  for everything.   In  my  way of  thinking,                                                                    
     that's  not  so  -  the government  is  responsible  to                                                                    
     parents. ...  When parents need to  resolve a situation                                                                    
     about their child, the court  should not get in the way                                                                    
     except in  some needed  bypass situations,  which we've                                                                    
     addressed very well in this  bill today.  And, yes, the                                                                    
     legislature is  also a government, but  the legislature                                                                    
     is a  balancing force between the  separation of powers                                                                    
     between the  executive branch, the  legislative branch,                                                                    
     and the judicial branch, which  I think has overstepped                                                                    
     its bounds, and hope that in  some way HB 364 will help                                                                    
     address  that issue.  ... And  I  strongly support  the                                                                    
     bill, obviously.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
5:41:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken.  Representatives  Coghill, Samuels,                                                               
Lynn, Dahlstrom, and  Ramras voted in favor of  reporting HB 364,                                                               
as  amended,  out  of  committee.    Representatives  Holmes  and                                                               
Gruenberg  voted  against  it.    Therefore,  CSHB  364(JUD)  was                                                               
reported from  the House Judiciary  Standing Committee by  a vote                                                               
of 5-2.                                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects