Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120

03/13/2009 01:00 PM JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:35:57 PM Start
01:36:05 PM HB35
03:34:15 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Meeting delayed to 1:30 pm today --
+= HB 35 NOTICE & CONSENT FOR MINOR'S ABORTION TELECONFERENCED
Moved Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
HB 35 - NOTICE & CONSENT FOR MINOR'S ABORTION                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:36:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO.  35, "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  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."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, after noting that  HB 35 is similar to the                                                               
existing  parental  consent law  that  the  Alaska Supreme  Court                                                               
recently  found  to  be unconstitutional  [in  State  v.  Planned                                                             
Parenthood  of Alaska],  asked  how much  the  Department of  Law                                                             
spent defending the existing law.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:39:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CRAIG TILLERY,  Deputy Attorney  General, Civil  Division, Office                                                               
of the Attorney General, Department  of Law (DOL), indicated that                                                               
the [State of Alaska] spent  approximately $500,000 in litigation                                                               
costs, and  approximately $940,000  in fees and  interest awarded                                                               
to the  prevailing party.  He  said he anticipates that  if HB 35                                                               
were  to pass  and  then be  challenged,  the [litigation]  costs                                                               
would be somewhat less [than $500,000] but still expensive.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES  offered  her  belief that  it  is  highly                                                               
likely HB  35 would be litigated  were it to pass,  and asked Mr.                                                               
Tillery to comment.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TILLERY  said  he  strongly   suspects  that  [HB  35  would                                                               
engender] litigation.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES asked  whether the  consent provisions  in                                                               
HB 35 are similar to those in the existing law.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. TILLERY said  they are somewhat similar though  "more in line                                                               
with the issues that concerned the [Alaska] Supreme Court."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether it  would be fair to say                                                               
that it is not clear that HB 35 is constitutional.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. TILLERY  said that is absolutely  correct.  He added  that it                                                               
is not  clear that  it is  constitutional, that  it is  not clear                                                               
that  it is  unconstitutional, but  that  it is  closer to  being                                                               
constitutional than the  [existing] law.  It also  is unclear how                                                               
the Alaska Supreme Court would  rule in any litigation engendered                                                               
by the  passage of HB  35, particularly given the  differences in                                                               
this bill  compared to the existing  law and given the  fact that                                                               
the  Alaska  Supreme  Court would  have  two  different  justices                                                               
serving on it.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS characterized  abortion as  an elective,  invasive,                                                               
surgical procedure; offered his  understanding that minors cannot                                                               
elect  to   undergo  any   other  elective,   invasive,  surgical                                                               
procedure without  parental consent; and questioned  this seeming                                                               
discrepancy.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. TILLERY offered his understanding  that in Planned Parenthood                                                             
of Alaska,  the Alaska Supreme  Court attached greater  rights to                                                             
the  [pregnant  minor]  in   situations  involving  the  surgical                                                               
procedure  of abortion  than  it would  have  for other  surgical                                                               
procedures, but  surmised that a representative  from the [Alaska                                                               
Supreme Court] could probably better address that question.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. TILLERY, in response to  questions, offered his understanding                                                               
that  typically, any  law passed  by the  legislature can  be the                                                               
subject of  litigation, and explained  that when  the legislature                                                               
passes a  law, the DOL  will defend  that law, regardless  of the                                                               
cost to  the State, except in  instances where it is  so patently                                                               
unconstitutional  that  to  defend  it  would  cause  the  [DOL's                                                               
attorneys]   to  violate   their  requirements   of  professional                                                               
responsibility  and  their duties  to  the  [Alaska Court  System                                                               
(ACS)];  HB  35 certainly  doesn't  meet  that criteria,  and  is                                                               
instead a  bill that the  DOL would defend  were it to  be passed                                                               
into law and then challenged.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:47:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES  pointed out  that  under  a U.S.  Supreme                                                               
Court  ruling,  hospitals  can, in  certain  situations,  provide                                                               
medical  care to  minors without  parental consent,  and surmised                                                               
that a  hospital would  deliver a  pregnant minor's  baby without                                                               
parental consent.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. TILLERY concurred.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO,  noting that  he  is  a former  paramedic,                                                               
offered  his understanding  that providing  medical care  without                                                               
parental  consent  is   allowed  in  life-threatening,  emergency                                                               
medical situations.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. TILLERY, in response to  a request, offered his understanding                                                               
that in  Planned Parenthood of  Alaska, the Alaska  Supreme Court                                                             
looked  at the  right of  privacy and  determined that  it was  a                                                               
fundamental right, looked  at what was proffered  as a compelling                                                               
state interest  and determined  that it  was indeed  a compelling                                                               
state interest, and looked at  whether requiring parental consent                                                               
was the least restrictive means  available and determined that it                                                               
was  not, that  a less-restrictive  means -  that being  parental                                                               
notification - was  available.  The Alaska  Supreme Court focused                                                               
on the  existing law's judicial bypass  procedures, and expressed                                                               
some  concerns that  those procedures  weren't  as efficient  and                                                               
timely as possible.   House Bill 35, in contrast  to the existing                                                               
law,  provides an  exception for  a minor  who is  the victim  of                                                               
documented  abuse; has  a three-day  - rather  than a  five-day -                                                               
deadline by which  the court must act; has an  eight-day - rather                                                               
than a nine-day - appeal  timeframe; and provides that a pregnant                                                               
minor may be  excused from school via a  confidential court order                                                               
[in  order to  go through  the judicial  bypass procedure].   The                                                               
bill, however,  also contains some  of the same standards  set by                                                               
the existing law.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TILLERY  said these  differences  and  similarities [in  the                                                               
judicial bypass  procedure provisions]  seem to provide  a method                                                               
by which  a pregnant  minor may  access an  abortion in  an easy,                                                               
straightforward, and quick  manner, and nothing else  in the bill                                                               
seems  to  detract from  that.    In  response to  questions,  he                                                               
surmised  that  the court,  should  HB  35  be adopted  and  then                                                               
challenged,  would probably  focus  on  the distinctions  between                                                               
parental consent as used in the  bill and the concept of parental                                                               
notification; and that the judicial  bypass procedure outlined in                                                               
the  bill  would suffice  to  mitigate  the asserted  problem  of                                                               
providing parents  - via consent  requirements - with  veto power                                                               
over a minor's reproductive choice to have an abortion.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TILLERY, in  response to  questions about  the DOL's  fiscal                                                               
note, offered  his understanding that the  aforementioned amounts                                                               
that the State  spent in defending the  existing parental consent                                                               
law covered all  levels of the defense; that that  case did go to                                                               
trial; and  that in-house  legal costs  don't increase  much from                                                               
year to year.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL,  speaking  as  the  sponsor  of  HB  35,                                                               
mentioned  that  the bill  does  have  a  referral to  the  House                                                               
Finance Committee.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  asked  whether  under  the  bill,  the                                                               
parents  of  a pregnant  minor  would  be  granted the  right  to                                                               
intervene in the judicial bypass procedure.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:04:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN  G.  CLARKSON,  Esq.,  Attorney   at  Law,  Brena,  Bell  &                                                               
Clarkson, PC,  offered his understanding  that they would  not be                                                               
granted that right under the  bill because the U.S. Supreme Court                                                               
- principally via  Bellotti v. Baird - has ruled  that a pregnant                                                             
minor's parents  are not  to be notified  that a  judicial bypass                                                               
procedure is occurring  because that would then  defeat the whole                                                               
purpose of the  judicial bypass procedure, that being  to allow a                                                               
minor  to   obtain  an  abortion  without   parental  consent  or                                                               
notification.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked whether the court  would have the                                                               
discretion to allow the parents  of a pregnant minor to intervene                                                               
in the judicial  bypass proceeding if they did find  out about it                                                               
and did seek to intervene.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON  indicated  that  the court  would  not  have  that                                                               
discretion;  again, the  [proposed bill]  is designed  to prevent                                                               
parents  from  even  having  knowledge  of  the  judicial  bypass                                                               
proceeding to begin with.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:07:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JANET  CREPPS, Deputy  Director, U.S.  Legal Program,  Center for                                                               
Reproductive Rights, concurred with  Mr. Clarkson, adding that if                                                               
that weren't the case, it  would create a constitutional problem.                                                               
In response to a further  question, she offered her understanding                                                               
that there isn't a published decision on that issue.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON concurred.   In  response to  another question,  he                                                               
explained  that although  the Alaska  Supreme  Court has  already                                                               
ruled  that there  is no  distinction between  the constitutional                                                               
rights of an  adult and the constitutional rights of  a minor, in                                                               
application,  the  court  will  take into  account  the  age  and                                                               
maturity  of  the particular  minor  in  question when  upholding                                                               
those rights.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. CREPPS agreed, adding her belief  that the court will apply a                                                               
balancing test  regarding the parents' interests  and the minor's                                                               
interests.  The  important point to consider with  HB 35, though,                                                               
is that a  minor who is pregnant is  facing certain life-changing                                                               
events and health  issues, thus changing the  normal balance that                                                               
the court ordinarily seeks in  situations involving other medical                                                               
procedures  [or   activities];  the  court  will   be  seeking  a                                                               
different  kind of  balance simply  because the  pregnancy itself                                                               
has such life-altering consequences.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON, in  response to  a further  question, pointed  out                                                               
that  abortion must  be  viewed  in a  very  unique context,  and                                                               
explained that when the legislature  passed the existing parental                                                               
consent law in 1997,  it made a policy call and  chose the age of                                                               
16 as the threshold,  surmising that at the age of  17, a girl is                                                               
more likely  than not to be  mature enough to decide  for herself                                                               
whether  she wants  to continue  with a  pregnancy.   This policy                                                               
call was  in part  based on  the fact that  a study  conducted in                                                               
Massachusetts  over the  course of  several years  indicated that                                                               
the  vast majority  of pregnant  girls who  sought, pursued,  and                                                               
obtained a judicial  bypass of that state's  parental consent law                                                               
- based  on the argument that  they were mature enough  to make a                                                               
decision regarding  whether to have  an abortion - were  17 years                                                               
of age; the  bill merely follows that same model  and exempts 17-                                                               
year-olds from its parental consent/notification requirements.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:16:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES characterized  the  bill's requirement  of                                                               
both parental consent and parental notification as unusual.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON  explained that in  Texas, the legislature  passed a                                                               
parental  notification  law  first  and then  passed  a  parental                                                               
consent  law, and  thus he  does not  see an  inconsistency or  a                                                               
conflict  in HB 35's  requirement  for  both, particularly  given                                                               
that in order  for parents to give consent, they  must first have                                                               
been  notified  and  thus consent  and  notice  requirements  are                                                               
compatible.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. CREPPS  added that there are  only a few states  that require                                                               
both parental consent and parental  notification.  Also, a unique                                                               
factor to consider with HB 35  is that it doesn't provide parents                                                               
with an  opportunity to  waive the  mandatory 48-hour  delay even                                                               
when consenting to an abortion.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether  it is possible that the                                                               
court  will  simply decide  that  it  has already  addressed  the                                                               
issues raised  by HB  35 and  uphold its  prior ruling  under the                                                               
doctrine of stare decisis.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON said it is possible,  but he is reluctant to predict                                                               
that that's what the court will do.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. TILLERY offered  his belief that if the court  did hold stare                                                               
decisis in a  challenge to HB 35, that would,  in effect, also be                                                               
a ruling  on HB  35's proposed changes  to the  existing parental                                                               
consent law.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON,  in response to  a question, opined that  the court                                                               
would have  to analyze  the effectiveness  and burden  of consent                                                               
versus the effectiveness and burden  of notification under HB 35,                                                               
because it's a very different consent  bill than the law that was                                                               
passed in 1997.  For example,  under the existing law, a pregnant                                                               
minor who has  been abused by her parents would  still have to go                                                               
through a judicial  bypass proceeding, whereas under  HB 35, such                                                               
a person  could avoid  the judicial  bypass proceeding  simply by                                                               
providing a  sworn statement  alleging the  abuse and  having the                                                               
abuse  corroborated by  one of  the  people listed  in the  bill.                                                               
Such a change  constitutes a significant reduction  in the burden                                                               
being placed  on a pregnant  minor, and  thus the court  would be                                                               
precluded from simply holding stare decisis.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CREPPS disagreed.   She  offered  her belief  that the  main                                                               
point  of   the  Alaska  Supreme   Court's  opinion   in  Planned                                                             
Parenthood  of  Alaska  is that  the  existing  parental  consent                                                             
requirement  [imbued   parents  with  an   unconstitutional  veto                                                               
power], adding that it is very  difficult for her to envision how                                                               
the  court could  analyze a  statute requiring  both consent  and                                                               
notice and  say that  it is  less burdensome  and provides  for a                                                               
less restrictive means than either  a parental consent statute or                                                               
a parental  notification statute by  itself.  She  predicted that                                                               
the court will find HB  35 unconstitutional just on those grounds                                                               
alone  even without  holding stare  decisis,  and most  certainly                                                               
will with such a holding.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:26:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON, in  response to a question, said he  doesn't have a                                                               
financial interest in  HB 35, and was simply asked  to testify by                                                               
the sponsor.   He added, though,  that he was compensated  by the                                                               
State for  his legal  services in  Planned Parenthood  of Alaska,                                                             
and estimated that  he'd received approximately $400,000-$500,000                                                               
over the course of 10 years.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CREPPS  shared her recollection  that her organization  - the                                                               
Center for Reproductive Rights  - received approximately $670,000                                                               
of  the  fees and  interest  awarded  the plaintiffs  in  Planned                                                             
Parenthood  of  Alaska,  and  offered   to  research  that  issue                                                             
further.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG questioned  whether it's  possible that                                                               
subsidiary litigation would  arise should the new  justice on the                                                               
Alaska Supreme  Court who had  previous involvement  with Planned                                                               
Parenthood [of  Alaska] refuse  to recuse  herself from  a future                                                               
challenge to HB 35.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON  acknowledged  that  that issue  might  be  raised,                                                               
offering his  recollection that  that new  justice served  on the                                                               
board  of Planned  Parenthood of  Alaska in  1997 -  the year  in                                                               
which  that  organization  filed   its  lawsuit  challenging  the                                                               
existing parental  consent Act.   Whether that  involvement would                                                               
require judicial recusal, however,  is not something he'd venture                                                               
to guess, he added.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR.  TILLERY,  in  response  to a  question,  explained  that  in                                                               
Planned Parenthood  of Alaska, the State  initially used in-house                                                             
counsel,  but  when  those  people   retired,  it  hired  outside                                                               
counsel, including Mr. Clarkson for a period of time.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON added  that he  is  the attorney  who helped  then-                                                               
Senator Loren Leman write the  existing parental consent law.  He                                                               
then represented the  legislature thereafter as an  amicus in the                                                               
ensuing  litigation, and  assisted the  DOL at  its request,  and                                                               
then, when the State's in-house  counsel retired, he was hired to                                                               
take over the State's defense.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms.  Crepps whether she thinks the                                                               
fact that  the bill doesn't  allow the 48-hour waiting  period to                                                               
be  waived even  when  the  parents consent  to  the abortion  is                                                               
another constitutional infirmity of the bill.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. CREPPS said she does think that.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:31:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   HOLMES   asked   whether   the   term   "medical                                                           
instability", as used on page 2, line 29, will cause problems.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CREPPS said  that term  causes her  concern, and  she thinks                                                               
that it  - both  on its own  and within the  context of  what she                                                               
characterized  as  the   fairly  convoluted  "medical  emergency"                                                               
definition  [provided  for  via proposed  AS  18.16.010(g)(3)]  -                                                               
would be subject to a claim of unconstitutional vagueness.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON said  that proposed  AS  18.16.010(g) does  several                                                               
things  that reduce  the impact  of  the [existing  law], one  of                                                               
which  is that  the  defense would  simply be  a  defense and  no                                                               
longer  an affirmative  defense,  and thus  the  burden of  proof                                                               
would no longer  be borne by the physician/surgeon.   With regard                                                               
to the term "medical instability,  he explained that the evidence                                                           
presented at  trial in  January 2003  - some  of which  came from                                                               
emergency room  physicians - indicated that  when doctors examine                                                               
a patient,  in order  to determine  whether an  emergency exists,                                                               
they  look at  whether the  patient is  stable.   He offered  his                                                               
belief  that  the term  "medical  stability"  is a  concept  that                                                               
medical students  are taught during  their first year  of medical                                                               
school, and  that doctors  keep that concept  in mind  every day,                                                               
particularly  when faced  with emergency  situations,  and so  he                                                               
therefore disagrees with Ms. Crepps  that the aforementioned term                                                               
is unconstitutionally vague.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON  then referred  to the  term "Clinical  judgment" as                                                           
used in proposed subsection (g)  and defined in that subsection's                                                               
paragraph (1), and offered his  belief that a physician/surgeon's                                                               
clinical judgment is  not going to be  second-guessed by anybody,                                                               
and  so   there  is  no   constitutional  infirmity   with  [this                                                               
provision] because  the only thing  the physician/surgeon  has to                                                               
do  is exercise  his/her discretion  in good  faith; proposed  AS                                                               
18.16.010(g)(1) reads:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
         (1) "clinical judgment" means a physician's or                                                                     
       surgeon's subjective professional medical judgment                                                                   
     exercised in good faith;                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON pointed  out that a physician/surgeon  could not use                                                               
the defense outlined  in proposed AS 18.16.010(g)  if he/she were                                                               
to make a  determination that there was an  emergency and perform                                                               
an abortion,  but do so in  bad faith, knowing that  there wasn't                                                               
really an  emergency.   In response to  a question,  he clarified                                                               
that in changing the type  of defense from an affirmative defense                                                               
to   just  a   defense,  as   the  bill   proposes  to   do,  the                                                               
physician/surgeon would still have the  burden of going forward -                                                               
presenting evidence  that he/she acted  in good faith -  but then                                                               
at that point it  would be the duty of the  State to prove beyond                                                               
a reasonable  doubt that the  physician/surgeon instead  acted in                                                               
bad faith, knowing that there wasn't really an emergency.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:37:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS turned  the committee's  attention to  Amendment 1,                                                               
labeled 26-LS0192\A.2, Kurtz/Mischel, 3/13/09, which read:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 29:                                                                                                           
          Delete "medical instability caused by a"                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:38:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS and REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES  said  she   believes  that  the  language                                                               
Amendment 1 proposes  to delete will result in  the physician not                                                               
only having  to believe in  good faith that delaying  an abortion                                                               
will  create   serious  risk  of  substantial   and  irreversible                                                               
impairment  of a  major  bodily function,  but  he/she must  also                                                               
[believe]  that  a delay  will  also  create  a serious  risk  of                                                               
creating  a medical  instability.   She characterized  this as  a                                                               
higher burden  on the physician/surgeon,  and offered  her belief                                                               
that there will be people who  will have a hard time interpreting                                                               
the meaning of  the language Amendment 1 is  proposing to delete.                                                               
The risk  of performing an  abortion without complying  with this                                                               
provision is  a felony, she  noted, and opined that  the language                                                               
in  existing AS  18.16.010(g)  is sufficient  because it  already                                                               
requires the physician/surgeon to have  a good faith belief [that                                                               
the abortion  should not be delayed].   "I think that  we need to                                                               
be very  careful in the  types of burdens  we are putting  on our                                                               
doctors and  their judgment; if  they think the patient  in front                                                               
of them needs to have an  emergency procedure, I think we, with a                                                               
felony hanging  over your head if  you get it wrong,  ... need to                                                               
be very careful," she concluded.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in support  of Amendment 1, pointed out                                                               
that the term  "medical instability" is not defined  in the bill,                                                           
and  that   there  doesn't  seem   to  be   a  legally-recognized                                                               
definition   of  that   term.     Since   [complying  with   this                                                               
terminology]  is a  key  aspect of  the defense,  the  lack of  a                                                               
legally-recognized  definition  may  cause   that  phrase  to  be                                                               
considered constitutionally  vague because  it's being used  in a                                                               
criminal context;  alternatively, that phrase might  be construed                                                               
to  be so  much  in favor  of  the defendant  that  it won't  add                                                               
anything  to  the  proposed  legislation.     In  conclusion,  he                                                               
characterized  [the  phrase  that  Amendment 1  is  proposing  to                                                               
delete]  as constitutionally  suspect  and unnecessary,  surmised                                                               
that  it may  result in  additional litigation  and expense,  and                                                               
said he supports Amendment 1.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  expressed a preference for  retaining the                                                               
language  Amendment  1 is  proposing  to  delete, expressing  his                                                               
belief  that a  medical instability  is  an aspect  of a  medical                                                               
emergency.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  opined  that  retaining  the  language                                                               
Amendment  1  is  proposing  to delete  will  instead  create  an                                                               
additional  inconsistency  within  the regulation  of  abortions,                                                               
because AS  18.16.060(d)(2), which defines medical  emergency for                                                               
purposes  of informed  consent, would  still read:   "a  delay in                                                               
providing  an abortion  will create  serious risk  of substantial                                                               
and irreversible  impairment of  a major  bodily function  of the                                                               
woman".                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:43:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Gruenberg  and                                                               
Holmes  voted in  favor of  Amendment 1.   Representatives  Lynn,                                                               
Dahlstrom,  Coghill,   Gatto,  and   Ramras  voted   against  it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:43:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  2,                                                               
labeled 26-LS0192\A.9, Mischel, 3/13/09, which read:                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 6 - 7:                                                                                                       
          Delete "not less than 48 hours before the                                                                             
     abortion is performed"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 4, line 23:                                                                                                           
          Delete "48 hours"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG,  recalling  Ms. Crepps's  comments  on                                                               
this issue,  proffered that the bill's  current mandatory 48-hour                                                               
waiting  period -  which he  characterized as  arbitrary -  could                                                               
endanger the minor's health, and  is unnecessary, particularly in                                                               
instances where  the parents  have already agreed  that it  is in                                                               
their  daughter's best  interest for  her to  have the  abortion.                                                               
Furthermore,  no such  waiting period  is required  under current                                                               
law.  He urged the committee to adopt Amendment 2.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   HOLMES  offered   her  understanding   that  the                                                               
proposed waiting period  would be required even  when the parents                                                               
accompany  the  minor  to   the  physician/surgeon's  office  and                                                               
consent  to her  having the  abortion,  and opined  that this  is                                                               
burdensome and  infringes upon the  rights of both the  minor and                                                               
her parents,  particularly in situations where  travel costs have                                                               
been incurred.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS opined  that  a waiting  period of  48  hours is  a                                                               
reasonable amount of time.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL offered  his  understanding  that from  a                                                               
practical standpoint,  at least that  much time passes  between a                                                               
first appointment  with a  physician/surgeon and  the appointment                                                               
wherein the  abortion procedure is  performed.   He characterized                                                               
the  bill's mandatory  48-hour waiting  period  as respectful  to                                                               
"both parties," and indicated that he is opposed to Amendment 2.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  pointed out that in  instance where the                                                               
parents  are  consenting  to the  abortion,  their  daughter  has                                                               
already  informed them  of her  pregnancy and  desire to  have an                                                               
abortion, and  yet under the bill,  that family - even  when they                                                               
have been  discussing the issue all  along - would still  have to                                                               
wait yet  another 48 hours.   He said he  wants there to  be some                                                               
discretion  on this  point, and  surmised that  Amendment 2  will                                                               
effect that.   In  response to  a comment,  he indicated  that he                                                               
would be amenable  to possibly amending Amendment 2  such that it                                                               
would  only address  situations in  which the  pregnant minor  is                                                               
facing a medical emergency.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  expressed a preference  for addressing  Amendment 2                                                               
as currently written.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:49:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Gruenberg  and                                                               
Holmes  voted   in  favor  of   Amendment  2.     Representatives                                                               
Dahlstrom,  Coghill, Gatto,  Lynn, and  Ramras voted  against it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:49:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  [made a  motion to adopt]  Amendment 3,                                                               
labeled 26-LS0192\A.1, Kurtz/Mischel, 3/13/09, which read:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 27:                                                                                                           
          Following "death":                                                                                                    
         Insert "or serious risk to the minor's health"                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG indicated  that a  serious risk  to the                                                               
minor's health ought to be  included in the definition of medical                                                               
emergency as outlined under proposed AS 18.16.010(g)(3)(A).                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO  opined  that including  that  language  as                                                               
Amendment  3 proposes  to do  would allow  the medical  emergency                                                               
exemption to be  applied in instances wherein  the minor's mental                                                               
health would  be adversely  affected by  the continuation  of the                                                               
pregnancy.    He  offered  his  belief  that  Amendment  3  would                                                               
neutralize the entire bill.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS concurred.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:51:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was   taken.    Representatives  Holmes  and                                                               
Gruenberg  voted  in  favor  of  Amendment  3.    Representatives                                                               
Dahlstrom,  Coghill, Gatto,  Lynn, and  Ramras voted  against it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:51:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  4,                                                               
labeled 26-LS0192\A.4, Kurtz/Mischel, 3/13/09, which read:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 17:                                                                                                           
          Delete "by a declaration of the"                                                                                      
          Insert "in a writing signed by the minor under                                                                        
     penalty of perjury."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 18 - 28:                                                                                                     
          Delete all material.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG  explained   that  Amendment   4  will                                                               
eliminate  the requirement  that  a pregnant  minor document  her                                                               
abuse via  a notarized statement  signed by both herself  and one                                                               
of    the   specific    people   listed    under   proposed    AS                                                               
18.16.020(a)(4)(B) who  has personal knowledge of  the abuse, and                                                               
will  instead  provide that  the  minor  may document  her  abuse                                                               
herself simply by  signing a statement under  penalty of perjury.                                                               
There should  not be a necessity,  he opined, to have  "all these                                                               
other people  involved"; the  right of privacy  is at  issue, and                                                               
the more strictures there are,  the more a minor's constitutional                                                               
right of privacy  is impinged upon, and thus the  more likely the                                                               
bill will be found unconstitutional.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS questioned  whether  a minor  would understand  the                                                               
phrase, "under penalty of perjury".                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  posited that most minors  would know it                                                               
means that if they lie, they go to jail.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS disagreed.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL pointed  out, though,  that as  currently                                                               
written, this  provision allows a  pregnant minor to  bypass even                                                               
the judicial bypass  procedure and merely requires  that both the                                                               
minor  and  a   specific  type  of  person   submit  a  notarized                                                               
declaration  of the  abuse.   He offered  his understanding  that                                                               
this provision  could also serve  to uncover the activities  of a                                                               
perpetrator.  The current language  is a protection, and provides                                                               
a minor with  a less-restrictive means of moving  forward with an                                                               
abortion on her own.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:56:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES,  referring to  a copy  of the  petition to                                                               
bypass parental  consent that  was created  for the  existing law                                                               
before  it   was  ruled  unconstitutional,  observed   that  that                                                               
petition requires the  minor to swear or affirm  under penalty of                                                               
perjury  that   certain  statements  were  true;   [the  courts],                                                               
therefore,  were already  expecting  a minor  to understand  that                                                               
concept.  She opined that  although she appreciates the sponsor's                                                               
efforts to address some truly  horrific situations wherein abused                                                               
minors   are   facing   an  unwanted   pregnancy,   proposed   AS                                                               
18.16.020(a)(4) as  currently written is just  too restrictive in                                                               
that it's requiring  an abused minor to get a  very specific type                                                               
of person to corroborate her allegations of abuse.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN  noted that proposed AS  18.16.020(a)(4) uses                                                               
the  term, "a  pattern  of emotional  abuse",  and surmised  that                                                               
teenagers  often  feel  like  they're  being  emotionally  abused                                                               
whenever  they don't  get  their  own way,  whereas  the type  of                                                               
people listed in  subparagraph (B) of subsection  (a)(4) are more                                                               
likely to know what emotional abuse really is.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his  belief that the question of                                                               
whether the pregnant  minor really is the victim of  a pattern of                                                               
emotional   abuse   will   ultimately  be   determined   by   the                                                               
physician/surgeon when he/she is  deciding whether to perform the                                                               
abortion [without  providing parental notification  and obtaining                                                               
parental consent];  the physician/surgeon  would be  talking with                                                               
the minor about the alleged  emotional abuse, and any reasonable-                                                               
thinking physician/surgeon wouldn't  consider situations in which                                                               
the  minor  simply isn't  getting  her  own way  as  constituting                                                               
emotional abuse.  He then pointed  out that under the language of                                                               
proposed  AS  18.16.030(b),  when  petitioning the  court  for  a                                                               
judicial bypass,  the minor must  file the complaint  under oath,                                                               
whereas the issue  of perjury isn't raised at all  in proposed AS                                                               
18.16.020(a)(4) as  currently written,  because it  only requires                                                               
that  the  declaration  of  the   alleged  abuse  be  signed  and                                                               
notarized.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said that from a  practical standpoint,                                                               
under the bill as currently  written, a pregnant minor would have                                                               
to make  at least two trips,  either first to the  court and then                                                               
to the physician/surgeon, or first  to the notary public and then                                                               
to the  physician/surgeon.  Under  Amendment 4, by  contrast, the                                                               
minor would just  have to make the trip  to the physician/surgeon                                                               
and  while  there  sign  a statement  under  penalty  of  perjury                                                               
documenting the  abuse.   That is not  a small  difference, given                                                               
that  for  a  judicial  bypass procedure,  the  bill  requires  a                                                               
pregnant minor to  go through the superior court,  and since many                                                               
communities across  the state  don't have  a superior  court, the                                                               
minor would  therefore essentially be required  to travel perhaps                                                               
hundreds of  miles from a  remote village -  no small task  for a                                                               
minor under the age of 17.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  pointed  out  that it  could  also  be                                                               
difficult for a pregnant minor  to obtain a corroborating witness                                                               
of   the    type   currently    required   under    proposed   AS                                                               
18.16.020(a)(4)(B), particularly if she lives  in a small village                                                               
where  almost  everybody  is  related,   since  most  people  are                                                               
reluctant  to  testify against  a  relative.   Furthermore,  many                                                               
communities in Alaska don't have  any law enforcement presence to                                                               
speak of or  any Department of Health and  Social Services (DHSS)                                                               
personnel,  thereby making  it impossible  for  a pregnant  minor                                                               
living in rural Alaska to  obtain a corroborating witness of that                                                               
sort.  As currently written,  the current language in proposed AS                                                               
18.16.020(a)(4)   raises   some  significant   equal   protection                                                               
problems for those living in rural Alaska.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:05:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Gruenberg  and                                                               
Holmes  voted   in  favor  of   Amendment  4.     Representatives                                                               
Dahlstrom,  Coghill, Gatto,  Lynn, and  Ramras voted  against it.                                                               
Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-5.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:06:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  5,                                                               
labeled 26-LS0192\A.5, Kurtz/Mischel, 3/13/09, which read:                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 3, following "abortion":                                                                                    
          Insert "or to bear a child"                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 25, following "abortion":                                                                                     
          Insert "or to bear a child"                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 28, following "abortion":                                                                                     
          Insert "or to bear a child"                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  opined that it  should also be  a crime                                                               
under  proposed AS  18.16.035  to coerce  a  pregnant minor  into                                                               
bearing a child  if she doesn't want  to; it ought to  be the act                                                               
of  coercion itself  that's illegal,  regardless of  whether it's                                                               
coercion to  bear a child  or coercion to  have an abortion.   He                                                               
offered   his    belief   that    proposed   AS    18.16.035   is                                                               
unconstitutional as currently written.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  disagreed, noting that AS  18.16 pertains                                                               
to  the regulation  of abortion.    He posited  that the  current                                                               
language of proposed  AS 18.16.035 would give  the pregnant minor                                                               
protection from being  coerced into having an  abortion, and give                                                               
her  grounds   for  emancipation.     He  said  he   objects  [to                                                               
Amendment 5].                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked whether proposed AS  18.16.035 is                                                               
intended to be a criminal statute.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL indicated  that  it is,  adding that  his                                                               
intention  is  to  prevent  a  minor  from  being  coerced  by  a                                                               
perpetrator into having an abortion.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he  was under the  impression that                                                               
proposed AS 18.16.035 would create  a felony crime in addition to                                                               
the general  crime of coercion under  Title 11.  He  urged that a                                                               
legal opinion  be sought on this  issue before the bill  is heard                                                               
in its  next committee  of referral.   He offered  a hypothetical                                                               
situation  involving a  contract to  illustrate that  whether the                                                               
coercion is  to prevent the  signing of a contract,  for example,                                                               
or to encourage the signing of  a contract, it is equally illegal                                                               
[under Title 11] - this is  a basic legal principle.  In response                                                               
to  a comment,  he  again urged  the sponsor  to  obtain a  legal                                                               
opinion on the matter.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM concurred with that suggestion.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed to do so.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
3:14:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Gruenberg  and                                                               
Holmes voted in  favor of Amendment 5.   Representatives Coghill,                                                               
Gatto,  Lynn,  and  Dahlstrom  voted   against  it.    Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 2-4.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:16:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  moved to  report HB  35 out  of committee                                                               
with  individual  recommendations  and  the  accompanying  fiscal                                                               
notes.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES objected.    She offered  her belief  that                                                               
everyone  has  the  goal  of reducing  the  number  of  unplanned                                                               
[teenage] pregnancies and  the resulting need for  minors to have                                                               
to make a decision  about abortion on their own.   This is a good                                                               
goal, but  HB 35  misses the mark  and is  still unconstitutional                                                               
regardless of how  it differs from existing law,  she opined, and                                                               
predicted that it  will result in a lot  of expensive litigation,                                                               
and will  instead hurt some  teenagers who, for  whatever reason,                                                               
feel  that they  can't go  to their  parents.   There aren't  any                                                               
provisions in  the bill that  would allow a pregnant  teenager to                                                               
[obtain consent from] another adult  in place of her parents when                                                               
her  parents wouldn't  be the  best people  to counsel  her.   "I                                                               
don't want teenagers facing these  things alone; I know there are                                                               
some protections  built into  this, [but] I  don't think  they go                                                               
far enough," she added.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES questioned  how a  pregnant teenager  in a                                                               
rural community with limited telephone  access and limited access                                                               
to the  courts is  going to  be able [to  comply with  the bill's                                                               
judicial  bypass provisions].   She  said she  thinks [the  bill]                                                               
will fall  short [of  helping such  teenagers], and  will instead                                                               
result   in    more   late-term   abortions    being   performed.                                                               
Furthermore, under  the bill, the  parents would still  have veto                                                               
power over their  pregnant minor's decision to  have an abortion,                                                               
and  she finds  this to  be morally  troubling, she  relayed, and                                                               
therefore objects to moving HB 35 from committee.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:20:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN posited that those  who support HB 35 believe                                                               
that children are a gift from  god entrusted to parents for care,                                                               
that parental rights  are needed in order for  parents to fulfill                                                               
their parental  responsibilities, and that family  is the bedrock                                                               
foundation  of society.    He predicted  that  most parents  will                                                               
acknowledge  that  they  are  imperfect,  but  pointed  out  that                                                               
parents don't  have to be  perfect in  order to be  good parents,                                                               
and  that  the  same  can  be said  of  children.    Parents,  he                                                               
surmised, as well as himself,  believe that without the bill, the                                                               
judicial  branch  of  government  will  have  abrogated  parental                                                               
rights in situations involving teenage pregnancy.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN offered  his  belief that  those who  oppose                                                               
HB 35  are   obsessed  with  maintaining  every   woman's  right,                                                               
regardless  of  her  age  or  situation,  to  have  an  abortion.                                                               
However,  he  opined,  parental  rights  extend  far  beyond  the                                                               
subject matter  of the bill, with  the bottom line for  him being                                                               
that children  are a gift  from god and  are not the  property of                                                               
federal,  [state,]  or  local  government,  or  the  judicial  or                                                               
legislative  branch of  government.   He said  that although  his                                                               
heart  goes out  to any  teenager  who finds  herself in  serious                                                               
trouble simply  because she made a  mistake, consideration should                                                               
be  given to  everyone involved,  including the  parents and  the                                                               
fetus.    In  conclusion,  he  relayed that  he  is  prolife  and                                                               
believes the bill is all about parental rights.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:25:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  opined that the terms  "clinical judgment",                                                               
"good   faith",  and   "necessary"  [as   used  in   proposed  AS                                                               
18.16.010(g)] give a lot of  credibility to the concept of moving                                                               
HB  35 from  committee,  and  that the  bill  does have  built-in                                                               
safeguards.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL -  remarking that he is  a strong advocate                                                               
of  parents  and  their  responsibilities   and  rights,  and  is                                                               
cognizant  of minors'  irresponsibility -  said he  believes that                                                               
the  Alaska   Supreme  Court  has  given   the  legislature  some                                                               
direction  regarding what  would constitute  a lease  restrictive                                                               
means  of  balancing the  state's  compelling  interests with  [a                                                               
minor's rights].   He also  believes, however, that  the parents'                                                               
rights were left out  of the balance, and so he  wanted to find a                                                               
way to give  parents the right and responsibility  of consent and                                                               
yet still provide  for those teenagers living  in troubled and/or                                                               
abusive  families.   [House  Bill 35]  strikes  that balance,  he                                                               
opined,  and  without  it,  he   predicted,  minors  will  become                                                               
vulnerable to predators, predators  that can currently take their                                                               
victims  to an  abortion clinic  and coerce  them into  having an                                                               
abortion.   House Bill 35  creates a body  of law that  will give                                                               
good guidelines  and protection to  minors, protect  the parents,                                                               
and give  "a good template" to  both the courts and  doctors when                                                               
considering those  circumstances wherein  a pregnant  minor seeks                                                               
to  have  an   abortion  without  parental  consent/notification,                                                               
whether  that be  through  judicial bypass  or  a declaration  of                                                               
abuse, he proffered.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  said a  minor  who  decides to  have  an                                                               
abortion without parental consent  or parental notification might                                                               
later  regret her  decision, particularly  if it  was arrived  at                                                               
because someone  put pressure on  her to  have an abortion.   The                                                               
bill will  provide minors with  bad-acting parents a  good avenue                                                               
for   moving   forward   with  an   abortion   without   parental                                                               
notification or consent.   The rights of  pregnant minors seeking                                                               
an  abortion should  be protected,  but so  should the  rights of                                                               
parents to give counsel and consent,  and HB 35 strikes a balance                                                               
between  reproductive rights  and reproductive  responsibilities,                                                               
and it is  therefore with the greatest respect  for both pregnant                                                               
minors  and  their  parents  that  HB  35  was  introduced.    In                                                               
conclusion,  he asked  members  to  vote to  move  the bill  from                                                               
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:31:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was taken.    Representatives  Gatto,  Lynn,                                                               
Dahlstrom, Coghill, and Ramras voted  in favor of reporting HB 35                                                               
out  of committee.   Representatives  Gruenberg and  Holmes voted                                                               
against  it.   Therefore,  HB  35  was  reported from  the  House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.                                                                                  

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
Bellotti v. Baird.pdf HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
ACOGStatementofPolicy.pdf HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
State v. Planned Parenthood.pdf HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
Letters of SupportOpposition 2.pdf HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
Letters of SupportOpposition 1.pdf HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
HB35 Sectional.pdf HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
HB 35
HB35 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
HB 35
HB35-LAW-CIV-3-6-09 (2).pdf HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
HB 35
HB35-DHSS-MS-03-09-09.pdf HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
HB 35
Court Forms re Judicial Bypass.pdf HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
Letters of SupportOpposition 3.pdf HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
HB35 Amendments 1-8.pdf HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
HB 35
Support.pdf HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
Support1.pdf HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
Support2.pdf HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM
Support3.pdf HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM