Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/11/1997 08:10 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 37 - PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HB 37, "An Act relating to a requirement that a parent, guardian, or custodian consent before certain minors receive an abortion; establishing a judicial bypass procedure by which a minor may petition a court for authorization to consent to an abortion without consent of a parent, guardian, or custodian; amending the definition of `abortion`; and amending Rules 40 and 79, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508, and 512.5, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska Administrative Rules." Number 0411 CHAIR JAMES explained the committee would take public testimony today until 10:00 a.m. The bill was also scheduled for Thursday February 13, 1997. Number 0598 JUDITH KOEHLER, Senior Legislative Counsel, Americans United for Life, was the first person to testify via teleconference in Chicago. She explained Americans United for Life was a non-profit, public interest law firm and educational organization. It had been involved in virtually all abortion litigation in the United States Supreme Court, including Roe v. Wade, since 1972. She was also a former Illinois Legislator and state attorney, and had been involved in all 50 states in drafting and defending parental involvement statutes-both parental notice and parental consent. Her testimony today would focus on the constitutionality of HB 37, the interest of Alaska in passing such legislation, and the affect upon teenage pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. MS. KOEHLER cited Roe v. Wade and Dole v. Bolton court cases. These two cases, she explained, gave a woman the right to an abortion throughout all nine months of her pregnancy. House Bill 37 did not touch those lines of cases. Instead, it derived its constitutionality from the Hodgson v. Minnesota case, Ohio case and the Casey case. These three cases were litigated in the U.S. Supreme Court and it held that parental involvement laws were reasonably related to a state's interest in preserving parental authority and protecting the health of minors without unduly burdening their right to choose an abortion. House Bill 37 was consistent with the laws that had been affirmed. Therefore, it could be successfully litigated and enforced. MS. KOEHLER further cited 34 states had parental involvement legislation. However, 7 of the 34 states were unenforceable because they did not include a judicial by-pass. Moreover, the public supported parental involvement laws. A poll in Alaska last year indicated that 78 percent of Alaskans supported parental consent laws for a girl 16 years of age and under. She believed, that same public support would be found for HB 37. It was also consistent with the favorable support in the states of Iowa, Texas, and Colorado. MS. KOEHLER further stated 1.5 million abortions were performed in 1992, of which, 27 percent were performed on teenagers-10 to 17 years of age. Furthermore, 41 percent of teenagers aborted their children, of which, only 45 percent told their parents and nearly 80 percent were performed in abortion clinics. And, one study found that less than one-half of the abortion clinics required parental notice for those 15 years of age and younger. MS. KOEHLER further explained in Minnesota teenage pregnancy rates were reduced by 25 percent after the parental notice law was passed, teenage birth rates were reduced by 12.5 percent, and teenage abortion rates were reduced by 27.4 percent. In essence, she stated, passing a parental involvement law was good public policy because it changed teenage behavior. That was the focus of HB 37. She also cited in Pennsylvania, there was a 22.4 percent decrease in teenage abortions after its law went into effect. In Nebraska, there was a 23 percent reduction in abortions and teenage birth rates after its law went into effect. And, in Mississippi, similar statistics were also generated. MS. KOEHLER further explained that ectopic pregnancies increased after a woman underwent an abortion. There were also reports of incompetent cervix complications, and the risk of breast cancer was elevated by 30 percent. A study in Seattle, Washington, indicated that a teenager who aborted her first pregnancy elevated her risk of breast cancer by 150 percent. And, all of the participants who had a family history of breast cancer, developed it by the age of 45. Teenagers did not have a good sense of their family medical history and only parental involvement in their decisions would be able to bring the health and medical factors to bear on their decision. MS. KOEHLER concluded by explaining a study in Finland that indicated within one year after an abortion a woman was six times more likely to commit suicide than a woman who carried her child to term. In addition, she was three times more likely to commit suicide compared to the general population of her own age group. Adults must help a minor with her decision. "The medical implications, the social implications all bring to bear with respect to Alaska's interest in protecting a minor's health, in protecting parental rights and fostering family unity." Number 1138 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Ms. Koehler if she would comment on the position of the American Medical Association (AMA) with respect to parental consent? Number 1152 MS. KOEHLER replied the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons filed a brief that stated and recognized the importance of the involvement of parents in medical treatments of minors, especially surgical procedures. Abortion was the number one elected surgery performed on women in the United States. The association was composed of obstetricians, gynecologists, family practitioners, and pediatricians who routinely provided medical services to minors. Number 1217 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Koehler if it was more accurate to say that Roe v. Wade "acknowledged" the right's of woman rather than "gave" them rights? Number 1230 MS. KOEHLER replied, "That is correct. It was possible to have an abortion performed." Number 1235 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Koehler if there were any circumstances where she would support a woman's right to choose? Number 1242 MS. KOEHLER replied she was here to testify on HB 37. She believed the bill did not interfere with a woman's right to choose an abortion. Furthermore, no parental consent law that had been successfully litigated in the United States Supreme Court unduly burdened a woman's right to choose. In Roe v. Wade she was given the right to have an abortion, and in Dole v. Bolton she was given the right to an abortion throughout all nine months of her pregnancy. House Bill 37 did not interfere with that right. It derived from the successful litigation of laws in Minnesota, Ohio and the Casey case that enabled a state to regulate the abortion procedure on behalf of the health and welfare of its minors and parental rights involved in a minor's decision. Number 1300 CHAIR JAMES reminded Representative Berkowitz to keep his question to HB 37 and to not ask personal questions of the testifiers. Ms. Koehler was an expert witness here to talk about the facts and not her beliefs. Number 1312 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied if an expert witness was going to testify the bias of the witness was important. Number 1317 CHAIR JAMES replied not in testimony in the legislative arena. Number 1326 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented Minnesota bordered other states unlike Alaska. He asked Ms. Koehler if she knew how many pregnant teenagers from Minnesota went to other states for an abortion? Number 1341 MS. KOEHLER replied there was no indication from the information because Minnesota was the first state to successfully litigate a two-parent notice law with a judicial by-pass. In Mississippi, a study indicated that some girls and adult women migrated to surrounding states for an abortion, but those states also had parental involvement laws of which they were required to meet. In addition, in Minnesota, over a five year period, 3,573 girls filed a petition for a judicial by-pass. Of the 3,573 petitions, 3,558 were granted, 6 were withdrawn, 9 were denied, of which, 1 was appealed and affirmed. Number 1464 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Koehler if she knew how many women died of an illegal abortion in Minnesota after the law was in effect? Number 1472 MS. KOEHLER replied he assumed that all illegal abortions were lethal, and that all legal abortions were safe. Statistics from every state in the country indicated that women died of legal abortions as well as illegal abortions. Number 1492 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Koehler if she knew how many people died from a legal abortion and how many died from an illegal abortion in Minnesota? Number 1500 MS. KOEHLER replied she could not give him that information because it was not part of the reporting that was available at this moment. Number 1560 DR. JAN WHITEFIELD, Medical Director, Alaska Women's Health Services, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. He stated he had counseled thousands of teens on abortions in accordance with the current state law. The majority had already consulted their parents, and in many cases their parents came with them to help them through this difficult time. The teens that did not come in came from dysfunctional homes who could not deal with their parents, and most would be absolutely intimidated to revert to the judicial by-pass. In addition, in the time it would take them to deal with the judicial by-pass it would delay their choice for an abortion and put them at a more advanced gestations increasing their medical risk. Number 1660 CHAIR JAMES commented testimony indicated that teenagers would be intimidated by the judicial by-pass. She asked Dr. Whitefield to explain how a judicial by-pass was different than counselling? Number 1676 DR. WHITEFIELD replied it was how they got into the legal system. It was the same as those that chose not to pursue state support for a pregnancy because they were intimidated by the application process. The Alaska Women's Health Services had tried and observed the judicial by-pass and found that it was intimidating. There was a lot of hesitancy surrounding the judicial by-pass option because of the time involved. At the clinic, it was a one-on-one situation with a thought in mind and the various options were presented such as, adoption and abortion. He would like to link every unwed teenager with a prospective adoptive parent, but very few people invoked the adoption process and there was hesitancy surrounding the judicial by-pass. Number 1829 THELMA HARTMAN, Director of Client Services, Crisis Pregnancy Center, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. She supported HB 37. A girl 14 years of age could not legally smoke, drink, drive or vote. Yet, she could have an abortion that could change her life. She could experience emotional and physical problems, such as, guilt, remorse, low self- esteem and regret. "I have always been of the impression that the laws were made to protect us. Do you feel that this is a protective law, and who does it protect?" The purpose was to protect the children, she answered. They needed the help of their parents. This law would provide protection for them. They were not mature enough to make a decision of this magnitude on their own. In her experience, as a counsellor, she found that girls regretted making such a decision in haste. Moreover, she cited a survey that indicated 74 percent of the women interviewed would not have an abortion again. Why would they say no? she asked. It was because they experienced guilt, depression, regret, remorse and low self-esteem. She encouraged the committee members to pass the bill. It was a step in the right direction to protect the young people. Number 1960 SUE DOGGETT was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. She was opposed to HB 37. The statistics from other states indicated that this type of legislation would neither help family communication nor reduce teenage abortions and pregnancies. In Michigan, a similar law was passed, and the teenage pregnancy rate actually rose by over 5 percent. In Missouri, when a similar law was passed, the girls went to Kansas to get an abortion. The abortion rate in Kansas rose 62 percent. In Massachusetts, after a similar law was passed, an average of 91 teenagers travelled to other states per month. And, in the states of New York, Missouri and Minnesota there was a substantial increase in late abortions. Moreover, the bill would create a cost burden and a case load burden on the courts. She wondered what the overall fiscal impact would be because the courts were already over burdened. Was the fiscal note was high enough? She further wondered if this piece of legislation would affect other people's rights to a speedy trial. The legislation was unnecessary and time could be spent on other important issues that affected the majority of Alaskans. The majority of Alaskans already consulted their parents. And, the vast majority of girls who petitioned the courts were successful. Therefore, the legislation appeared to be an attempt to get teenagers to talk to their parents. This, she declared, should be handled through good parenting skills that would include dialogue about sex before marriage. Moreover, the legislation placed the entire burden of the episode directly of the minds and shoulders of the girls and their families. The males did not have to take any responsibility for impregnating them. Number 2094 CAROL BEECHER was the next person to testify via teleconference in Cordova. She strongly supported HB 37. An abortion was a violent procedure on the womb which had many proven health risks as well as emotional impacts. A young girl, therefore, should be required to consult her parents due to her highly emotional state. She believed the primary responsibility of a child belonged to the parents and not to the state. The parents were best suited to advise their children. Moreover, abortion was big business. It made sense that the abortion advocates would try to eliminate parental involvement because this bill could possibly reduce revenue. She reiterated it was important for the parents to be involved in a life-long decision such as an abortion. Number 2150 BARBARA RAWALT was the next person to testify via teleconference in Delta Junction. She was testifying today as a parent of two adult sons and one granddaughter. Parents had the right to know when a crucial decision was about to be made. Parental consent was needed for school field trips, for example. "Surely consent should be needed for a surgical procedure, such as, an abortion." The risk to the baby was obvious and immediate. And, as prior testimony indicated, there were emotional and physical risks for the girl. "For a parent to not be included in that decision makes absolutely no sense to any thinking person." She urged the committee members to vote, "yes." Number 2205 PEGGY SEELEY was the next person to testify via teleconference in Fairbanks. She supported HB 37. She wondered how many parents of teenagers felt they were able to make a truly informed decision about abortion on their own. And, how many responsible parents would want their children to undergo an invasive and possibly life threatening procedure without their knowledge and/or consent. Currently, minors must have parental consent for any medical procedure, other than an abortion. These laws were designed to safeguard minors by involving their parents who cared the most about them. A young woman facing a crisis pregnancy needed all the help and emotional support she could get. She needed to know that she was loved and supported by the most important people in her life-usually her parents. A poll indicated that 74 percent to 80 percent of adults supported parental involvement. She reiterated minors were not adults-legally, physically, emotionally or psychology. "I urge you to protect the young women of Alaska and to defend the rights of parents; to safeguard their under age daughters. Please vote for House Bill 37." Number 2264 RUTH EWIG was the next person to testify via teleconference in Fairbanks. She completely supported HB 37 and complimented Representative Pete Kelly and all the other pro-family legislators in Juneau. Her 16 year old son felt it was ridiculous that an abortion was possible without parental consent or involvement. She called HB 37 a bill of compassion, love and protection for minors. It was a shame that parents were required to give permission for a minor to get her ear pierced, but not for an abortion. She also agreed with prior testimony surrounding post abortion syndrome. She asked the committee members to vote, "yes" on HB 37. Number 2335 LINDA BELDEN was the next person to testify via teleconference in Kenai. She supported HB 37 and the benefit of a judicial by-pass. She called it a common sense law that was crucial for the protection of minors. A minor needed parental consent to get her ear pierced, for school field trips and for medication from a school nurse. Moreover, the nation was also concerned about teenagers smoking. "Surely if we are concerned about our teens lungs, we must also be just as concerned about all other aspects of their health including the effects of an abortion on her future well-being and health." In regards to protecting a girl from potential abusive situations, she asked, "Do we in turn protect teens from potentially abusive situations by not sending home bad report cards, by not informing parents of discipline problems at school, or by not notifying parents of a minor's speeding ticker, or by not arresting teens and informing the parents of teens who have broken the law." She stated veterinarians were required to get the permission and input from pet owners regarding the care of their pet. Yet, "our own children can undergo a potentially dangerous surgical procedure without the permission and input of their parents. Certainly, our minor children should have more consideration than a beloved family pet." Moreover, teenagers were vulnerable to coercion and compromised decision making. Teenagers were well known for making impulsive, ill-considered, and risky decisions. Minors were called minors for a reason. In the Planned Parent Hood v. Stanford case of 1976, the Supreme Court stated that an abortion was a great decision for a girl of tender years under emotional stress and could be ill-equipped to make a decision without emotional support and advise. "Please pass the law." Number 2455 ELSIE O'BRYAN was the next person to testify via teleconference in Mat-Su. She referred the committee members to page 4, line 27, and called the language frivolous allegations against the parents. TAPE 97-10, SIDE B Number 0001 MS. O'BRYAN further referred the committee members to page 5 and cited AS Sec. 18.16.030 (c). She was concerned that five days were not realistic. The courts were full as earlier testimony indicated. Was it enough time for a court to make a decision? she asked. In addition, on page 5, line 10, she recommended changing the language to include "denial" rather than "failure to act." CHAIR JAMES announced to Ms. O'Bryan that the sponsor was here today. He would take her concerns into account. Number 0044 VIRGINIA PHILLIPS was the next person to testify via teleconference in Sitka. She served on various boards, but was here today testifying on behalf of herself. In every case that she had worked with she saw the family bond strengthen when a minor told her parents she was pregnant. Most parents loved and cared for their children. Anything that weakened the bond between a parent and child destroyed the family bond of trust. She could not conceive why anyone would want to weaken that bond by helping a minor sneak behind her parent's back for an abortion. "Remember, it is the parents who are the ones that support their child's emotional and physical problems after an abortion." She cited the increased risk of breast cancer after terminating a first pregnancy with an abortion. "Please pass House Bill 37 and thank you." Number 0136 EVE GARTNER, Staff Attorney, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP), was the next person to testify via teleconference in Colorado. She was opposed to HB 37. Attorneys at the center had been involved in nearly every major United States Supreme Court case involving abortion. It was currently challenging abortion restrictions involving parental involvement laws, mandatory delays, and numerous other governmental restrictions on access to abortion across the country. It represented the plaintiff in the Mat-Su Coalition for Choice v. Valley Hospital court case in Alaska. The case was currently pending before the Alaska Supreme Court. MS. GARTNER further stated HB 37 would make it a criminal offense for a physician to perform an abortion on a woman under the age of 18, unless one of her parents consented to the procedure, or it was authorized by a Superior Court Judge. Any person who failed to comply with these requirements, faced imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to $1,000. The center believed this bill would place numerous and onerous burdens on young women who sought abortions, and on doctors who performed abortions. House Bill 37 would undermine the rights of young women, particularly low-income women, to make reproductive decisions. It would also discourage abortions. Some doctors would even stop performing abortions due to the threat of criminal penalties. Defeat of this bill was necessary to ensure that young women would be able to continue to obtain safe and legal medical care in Alaska. Moreover, this bill was bad public health policy and it was unconstitutional. The medical emergency exception was impermissible and narrow under long-standing federal constitutional precedents. The judicial by- pass procedure also failed to meet well-settled federal constitutional standards. More importantly, HB 37 in its entirety, was unconstitutional under the Alaska State Constitution which explicitly protected an individual's right to privacy. The Alaska Supreme Court had consistently held that this explicit privacy guarantee provided more protection of individual rights than the federal constitution. It had held that it protected an individual's autonomy to make choices affecting his or her body and personal life. It had also recognized that the right to privacy provided protection for personal decisions about child bearing. In addition, federal courts had upheld the constitutionality of parental consent laws as long as they had adequate exceptions for medical emergencies and a proper judicial by-pass procedure, of which, HB 37 did not. It was very likely that the Alaska Supreme Court would hold that HB 37 violated the state's constitutional right to privacy because it interfered with the rights of young women to make the private decision to terminate her pregnancy. Furthermore, Alaska was one of only four states that had the free standing right to privacy in its constitution. In Florida, the supreme court relied on its privacy provision to strike down a parental consent abortion law similar to HB 37. The state's interest in protecting immature minors and preserving the family unit were not sufficiently compelling to override what the court called, "the substantial invasion" of the young woman's privacy right created by the parental consent requirement. The center was prepared to challenge this measure should it be enacted and, regardless of the outcome, litigation would be expensive. In the Mat-Su litigation the plaintiff's attorney had been awarded fees of approximately $110,000 for just the Superior Court portion of the case. If the center prevailed at the Supreme Court level it would probably be entitled to additional fees. The center urged the committee members to vote against HB 37. Number 0363 DAVID ROGERS, Representative, Alaska Women's Lobby, was the first person to testify in Juneau. He read the following statement into the record: "The Alaska Women's Lobby is a statewide advocacy organization working toward expanded opportunities, equal access, and enhanced representation for women. The Lobby is supported solely by contributions. The Alaska Women's Lobby opposes House Bill 37. We wholeheartedly encourage open and honest communication between parents and their children, and support efforts to prevent teenage pregnancy. However, we don't believe that HB 37 will accomplish either of those goals. "Responsible parents should be involved when their young daughters face crisis pregnancies. It is the hope of every parent that a child confronting this crisis will seek the advice and counsel of those who care for her most and know her best. In fact, most young women do turn to their parents when they are considering an abortion. Unfortunately, some women cannot or will not because they come from homes where physical violence or emotional abuse are prevalent or because their pregnancy is the result of incest or rape. "The government can't force healthy family communication where it doesn't already exist. Ironically, laws mandating parental notice or consent can actually harm the young women they are trying to protect by increasing illegal and self-induced abortion, family violence, suicide, later abortions and unwanted childbirth. These concerns are shared by the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. "But, doesn't HB 37 solve these well recognized, documented problems by allowing teens to ask a judge for permission to terminate their pregnancy as an alternative to parental consent? We don't think so. "For most adults, going to court for any purpose is difficult. For teens, it can be overwhelming and at times impossible, especially under these circumstances. Assuming they have reasonable access to a court in the first place, some young women will not go or delay going because they fear that the proceedings are not confidential or that they will be recognized by people at the courthouse. Many will experience general fear and distress or will not want to reveal intimate details of their personal lives to strangers. Others won't be able to attend hearings because they are in school. Still others, victims of rape or incest, will fear the consequences of possibly having to identify the perpetrators who, under state law, must then be reported to the proper authorities. "And if they do eventually find the courage to go to court, even with the tight deadlines proposed in this bill, the time it takes to schedule the proceeding and obtain a decision (not to mention appeals) may result in delays that significantly increase the health risks of the procedure. "We understand and sympathize with the goals of HB 37's sponsors and supporters. In a perfect world, all children should talk to their parents before any decisions are made about a teenage pregnancy; and, in fact, most do. But this is not a perfect world. For a wide variety of reasons, many young women will not or cannot talk to their parents or a judge about this unique, very personal and very difficult decision. "Unfortunately, instead of transforming dysfunctional families into stable ones HB 37 may force many teens-faced with two equally unacceptable options-to have their step-father's or rapist's children, to risk their lives by having illegal or self-induced abortions or to suffer with the results of exacerbating an already troubled or dangerous home life. That is a pretty dear price to pay for a message that may not be heard. "For those reasons, the thousands of Alaskans represented by the Alaska Women's Lobby oppose HB 37." Number 0504 SANDY HARBANUK was the next person to testify in Juneau. She was uncomfortable testifying today because she was going to talk about things that she had never talked to anybody else about before. She explained she grew up in an abusive family. She was concerned about the children having to prove there was a pattern of physical, sexual or emotional abuse to the court. She never told anybody about her abuse at home; she never told her teacher, the school nurse, or her husband of 18 years. If she had faced a pregnancy as a teenager, she would not have told her parents nor would she have gone before a judge to convince him what her home life was like. The judge would have been another authority figure to her. "Once you tell people things then there is a burden on their part. What are they going to do with that information." She would have tried to go to another state for an abortion, the self-induced method or suicide. Those would have been her only options. She currently worked as an historical researcher and was well aware that there was nothing new that happened on the face of the earth. There were other girls in the same situation. This bill would not give a girl a good option for recourse. It would place some girls in danger. She urged the committee members to further consider the ramifications of this bill. Number 0672 DR. CYNTHIA BROOKE was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. She was a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist in Anchorage. Obstetricians and gynecologists dealt with private issues because of the nature of their business. It would be of little use if a patient could not confide private matters, such as, unwanted pregnancies. Privacy was absolutely essential to provide appropriate care, treatment and support of a patient. It was because of the privacy and confidentiality issues that she spoke out against HB 37. Teenagers deserved the same level of confidentiality and professionalism as their parents. She encouraged teenagers to confide to their parents on their own terms. And, it was unrealistic to expect teenagers to confide to their parents in abusive situations. It was inconceivable to think that a teenager who could not tell her parents or family members that she was pregnant, would be willing to go in front of a judge and tell him or her of her dysfunctional situation. She knew for a fact that there were many teenagers who would rather die than confront relatives, friends, parents or strangers who would disapprove of their situation. From her experience, teenagers who came from loving households eventually told their parents about the unwanted pregnancy. And, the parents usually wanted the teenager to receive all the facts. In fact, she was five times more likely to die if she carried the pregnancy to term than if she had a legal first-trimester abortion. Therefore, it was important that the teenager enter into the decision making. In the opposite situation, it was not feasible for the parents to be involved in the decision making process for the girls at risk. She reiterated doctors would be against this bill because it went against the oath of confidentiality that they swore to uphold. Number 0975 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Dr. Brooke to contrast the health and emotional effects of an abortion against the health and emotional effects of a pregnancy brought to term? Number 0990 DR. BROOKE replied a statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics indicated that it was a lack of involvement in the decision making process that caused the most psychological harm in the case of carrying a pregnancy to term. There was not a lot of evidence, however, that a terminated pregnancy with consent of the teenager caused psychological harm. Number 1047 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Dr. Brooke to comment on the link between abortion and cancer. Number 1055 DR. BROOKE replied the link between cancer of an abortion was a misstatement of the scientific evidence. The more pregnancies a woman had lowered her risk of certain kinds of cancer-uterine and ovarian. Birth control pills did the same thing; it was an hormonal effect. The evidence was being extrapolated to mean that a shortened pregnancy, such as an abortion, caused cancer. "You can't say that," she declared. A shortened pregnancy did not cause cancer, and whether or not it put a woman at a higher risk for cancer, no studies indicated that was true. Number 1117 KATHRYN CARSSOW was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. She was opposed to HB 37. She explained twenty-nine years ago in college she became pregnant. She came from a very functional family, but at that time an abortion was illegal. She felt if she told anybody that she was pregnant her options would have been and the decision would no longer be hers. Consequently, she did not tell her parents. She did not tell anybody except the illegal abortionist. She felt fortunate to be alive today. Her parents were dismayed afterwards. She reiterated, however, if she would have told people, she would have lost her choice. Moreover, "Laws can't make families work, but laws can get in the way of families working. You cannot get in between a young woman and her body and her future." She was also concerned if HB 37 passed an illegal abortion industry would be created in Alaska. "Please don't let this law pass." Number 1287 JANET WALLACH was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. She had worked professionally with the youth for over 15 years. She had also been a foster parent. Every teenage parent that she had seen suffered from low self-esteem, depression and regret. Moreover, the bill proposed a great deal of spending that the state could not afford at this time. There would be the cost of litigation and the increased social cost of the health effects for the parents and the children. She also believed there should be a lot less regulation of one's private life by the government. And, HB 37 would add more regulations. The state should be looking at putting its time and money into preventative approaches. This bill was not the answer. Number 1403 SID HEIDERSDORF was the next person to testify in Juneau. He supported HB 37. He found it troubling to hear physicians say they could provide better medical care without parental involvement. The question of which was safer-abortion or child birth-flew in the face of common sense, he stated. State law should reflect broad, general principles. The principle here was to recognize that parents were responsible for their children. "This is simply good state policy," he declared. A vast number of people did not even know that it was legal to have an abortion without parental consent. "It's such a logical thing." The counsellors and the abortionist knew it was legal so he view the bill as a great protection of the teenage mother. The people opposed said a young girl would go to her parents anyway and others would not go under any circumstances. He believed, however, there was a third group-a marginal group. "These girls need the direction and guidance that the law gives them. The law is in fact a teacher. The law says you must consult with your parents." This was the group that HB 37 would serve best. He asked the committee members to support and pass the bill to recognize the well-established values that already existed in society. "Parents love their children and will do what's best for them." In the cases where that was not the case, the judicial by-pass was provided. Moreover, it was important to look at the other states to determine the effects of the bill. He reiterated that parents should have the responsibility for the health care of their children. In addition, counselling in the abortion clinics was a sham. There might be some good ones, but just talk to the individuals who had obtained an abortion. The country was full of abortion clinics. He wondered why it was necessary to have organizations that handled the post abortion syndrome. The country was full of girls that had mental and psychological problems as the result of an abortion. He reiterated he supported HB 37. Number 1685 BETTY HALL, Member, Black Americans for Life, was the next person to testify in Juneau. The prior testimony covered just about everything that she wanted to say. She cited a case in New York where a woman helped a young girl obtain an abortion to help the father of the child-her son. The mother and the son were both sentenced to prison. The mother of the daughter said had she known about the pregnancy they would have worked it out. "We parents need to have a chance, at least, to know about this and talk about it." She shared with the committee members her daughter got pregnant in college. They worked it out together. Her daughter kept the child and was very healthy and happy. "Please consider passing this bill because this can happen to any one of you in here who has an under age daughter." Number 1765 DR. BRUCE CHANDLER was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. He strongly supported parental notification when there was a suitable parent to listen and understand. He was worried about the ones that would be forced to talk to their parents that did not come from supportive families. He routinely tried to get the teenager and the parents to talk. But, there were situations where it would put the teenager in greater risk. Moreover, he had little concern about judicial by- pass and felt that it might drive teenagers away from health care. Number 1920 EILEEN BECKER, Executive Director, Homer Crisis Pregnancy Center, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Homer. She stated was working on a case now, whereby, if the law existed now the girl would have considered other options. Furthermore, she felt there would be litigation, but that was the chance any new law took. "We dare not take parental rights away from parents." There were bad parents and there were parents who really did care. Children did not always make the right choices. It was obvious in the fact that they were pregnant. They needed somebody to help with their decisions. She cited the post-abortion counselling was the fasted growing entity in the nation today because of the devastation of abortion. She was also amazed that the medical profession would consider this a good choice because it would not do anything without parental consent. But, it would perform an abortion. "It's just amazing," she declared. Moreover, the cost of the average abortion was $450. And, everyday in America 4,000 plus abortions were performed. There was more at stake here than just parental consent. "Please, please, pass House Bill 37." Number 2139 HUGH FLEISCHER was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. He urged the committee members not to pass HB 37. It was difficult to understand adolescent teenagers, as any parent knew. That was the problem here. Parental consent sounded reasonable. However, a lot of those home environments were dysfunctional. He was concerned about the intimidation of a court process for a young child. The doctors indicated in earlier testimony that the vast majority were not willing to go to court. "I frankly think this is a terrible bill. It's endangering children and you should not pass it." Number 2346 BRANT MCGEE, Head, Office of Public Advocacy, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. The Office of Public Advocacy would be the agency that supported girls who were pregnant and who sought judicial by-pass. It estimated there would be 112 cases per year at a cost of $1,500 a piece. The total cost per year would be $168,000. That was a conservative estimate associated with the Office of Public Advocacy only. It did not factor in litigation associated with the questions of constitutionality. The figure did not include witness or investigation costs association with this type of litigation either. The bill required that the lawyer prove by clear and convincing evidence that the minor was either mature enough to make an informed decision, or that she had suffered abuse at the hands of her parents. Clear and convincing evidence.... TAPE 97-11, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. MCGEE next questioned the ability to maintain confidentiality of these proceedings, specially in the one or two court house communities that dominated Alaska. These court houses were full of clerks and other workers that lived in the community. It was inevitable that in many of these instances the proceedings would not remain confidential. Moreover, he had been unable to find any evidence to suggest that more parents would be consulted as a result of the passage of these laws. In 1991 a survey indicated that 61 percent of pregnant minors consulted their parents. That meant 39 percent did not consult their parents. The survey was conducted in states that did not have a parental notice law, such as, Alaska. In Minnesota, the number of children who pursued judicial by-pass was 43 percent, an insignificant difference, he stated. Number 0143 CHAIR JAMES referenced Mr. McGee's testimony regarding confidentiality and asked him if he stated that the people could not trust the court employees? Number 0174 MR. MCGEE replied when clerks and other court employees saw a minor in a court house, questions would be presented about her presence. It was a notable event for a youngster to show up in a court house. It was inevitable that the purpose of the proceeding would be discovered. He spoke from personal experience as 20 years as a lawyer. Number 0227 CHAIR JAMES stated she did not share the same concerns of Mr. McGee. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ declared a conflict of interest because Ms. Salerno, the next witness, and he boarded at the same residence. CHAIR JAMES stated that was not a concern. Number 0291 ANGELA SALERNO, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers Alaska Chapter (NASW), was the next person to testify in Juneau. She brought to the debate the perspective of service providers. The association did not take a position on the morality of abortion. Abortion was controversial because it reflected different value systems in a pluralistic society, therefore, toleration was necessary. MS. SALERNO further stated that 97 percent of women who obtained an abortion had no complications. Teenage girls were 24 times more likely to die in child birth than in a first-trimester legal abortion. The American Academy of Pediatrics reported that legislation mandating parental involvement increased the risk of pregnancy by delaying access. The AMA reported that complication rates increased for abortions performed between the 13th and 24th week of pregnancy. "The longer we wait to allow women to have an abortion, the grater the risk to their health." Furthermore, the most reliable studies showed there was no increased risk of breast cancer due to an abortion. The entire body of research was called inconclusive by the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. Moreover, in refute to the long-term health effects of abortion, many organizations did not recognize their existence. The most prominent emotional response was relief from a first-trimester abortion. Another study showed that a group of black teenagers who had an abortion were more likely to graduate from high school, they showed no greater level of stress, and had no greater rate of psychological problems two years after the abortion. The American Journal of Psychiatry reported up to 98 percent of women who had an abortion had no regrets and would make the same choice again. In 1987 Surgeon General C. Everett Koop could not form a conclusion on abortion because there was no evidence. In 1988, he indicated that the risk of significant emotional problems following an abortion was "minuscule." In 1989, a panel of experts assembled by the American Psychological Association concluded-unanimously-that legal abortions did not create psychological hazards. MS. SALERNO stated, in conclusion, the community and the legislature was asking that teenagers become more responsible through legislation. When in fact, this piece of legislation did just the opposite by asking them to take less responsibility for themselves. That was a clear contradiction in public policy. The association supported the idea of strong families and believed that parents had a profound interest in the well being of their children. But, in the case of a pregnancy, it was the teenager's right that must be paramount. The courts had found that teenagers who wanted to keep their pregnancy a secret almost always had a good reason for doing that. When there was reason to expect an abusive parental reaction to an unplanned pregnancy, her right to privacy must be first. She was in the best position to know if she was in danger or not. A legislature that was unfamiliar with a young woman's situation was not in a position to force her to involve her parents. "When abortion is concerned, privacy can be a life or death matter for teenagers." Number 0706 PAULINE UTTER, Representative, Abortion Rights Project, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. The legislature could not mandate a teenager to talk to her parents. "You might want to, but you can't." Moreover, choice was legal in the United States today, and this bill was trying to remove a woman's right to choose. She urged the committee members to vote against HB 37. Number 0808 JOHN MONAGLE, Representative, Alaskans For Life, was the next person to testify in Juneau. Alaskans For Life was an autonomous group representing 1,200 people in Juneau. The testimony indicated that parents should take responsibility for their children. Yet, doctors and attorneys indicated that they were in a better position to decide for the parents. In addition, this was a multi-million dollar industry, and doctors were driven by the dollar. Alaskans For Life supported HB 37 and it urged the committee members to pass the bill. Number 0875 JANET MITSON was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. She was the mother of a 16 year old daughter. She was opposed to HB 37. This was a poor bill that did little credit to its sponsor. Why?, she asked, because it was cowardly, unjust and disrespectful. The root issue was legal abortion and the desire to ban it. But having failed at that, the sponsor took what he could, gnawing away at the rights of young women in Alaska. This bill was really about the desire to sponsor and limit choices for young women, restrict their independent judgement, and control their actions and bodies. Her daughter did not need her parents or a judge to do her thinking or make her decisions for her. She and her peers could do that for themselves. What they cannot do, however, was vote. Therefore, some legislators thought they could be an easy target to control. There were thousands of older men and women who felt, as she did, and stood ready to defend young women for those who seek to diminish their rights. "We are watching, we will hold legislators accountable to the act to restrict the rights of young women who by age alone have less political voice and power. And, we do vote." She urged the committee members to do what was right, just, and respectful for all young women in Alaska by opposing HB 37. Number 1053 THEDA PITTMAN was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. She had not heard any testimony to indicate that doctors and attorneys were in a better position to choose than the pregnant young woman. She did not hear any counsellors indicate that they were in a better position to choose either. She heard talk about urging young women to talk to their parents and helping them to make a decision based upon the full range of legal options available to them. Moreover, treatment for a sexually transmitted disease did not require parental consent. "Thank goodness for it," she declared. At some stage, the people recognized that there were some things so intimate and so personal that it was more important to get the treatment than it was to get a piece of paper from their parents. It was also true that a teenage mother could okay treatment for her baby, or put it up for adoption without her parental consent. "This is a sad bill. I urge you to defeat it."
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|