Legislature(1997 - 1998)

04/08/1998 04:40 PM Senate FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 234(FIN) am                                              
"An Act relating to assistance for abortions under the                         
general relief program."                                                       
                                                                               
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp noted this was the first hearing for this                       
bill in the Senate Finance Committee.  During this meeting,                    
the members would hear public testimony.  Testimony would be                   
limited to three minutes because the teleconference was only                   
available until 6:30 p.m.                                                      
                                                                               
The sponsor of the bill, Representative Terry Martin, was                      
invited to speak to the legislation.  His testimony was as                     
follows:                                                                       
                                                                               
"The purpose of HB 234 is to change the priority of programs                   
under the General Relief [Medical Program].  Over the past                     
four years we have heard the Governor and his Administration                   
complain about the Legislature's not having enough money for                   
eyeglasses for children, for emergency dental care for                         
senior citizens - all kinds of things."                                        
                                                                               
"As I looked into the issue, we find out that what's really                    
happened is that the free abortion rate has accelerated to a                   
pace that's unbelievable.  For instance, in one year from                      
'96 to '97 the number of free abortions have increased 116                     
procedures.  That's way out of line.  We find out that                         
perhaps part of that reason has to do with the child                           
enforcement services doing a better job making the fathers                     
of children pay for their off-springs, whether they're                         
married or not."                                                               
                                                                               
"So it seems to be that the male partner involved in these                     
activities are encouraging to get free abortions, it being a                   
matter of convenience more than of need.  It certainly does                    
not have much to do with economic needs either as I'll show                    
you later."                                                                    
                                                                               
"One of the things that really surprise me about this bill,                    
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, is the number of                    
public support that has come in.  Here I have petitions that                   
I did not initiate and we divided them by communities,                         
whether they be Fairbanks, Kenai, Juneau and so on, and I'm                    
just amazed at the number of people that know about this                       
bill and the reason why we've introduced it.  So outside of                    
those petitions, which have over 5,000 names on them, we                       
have been receiving tremendous amount of POM's and I have                      
some of them printed here.  We put them in different                           
sections of the state, whether it be Anchorage, Fairbanks,                     
Kenai, whatever.  But it shows that a lot of public interest                   
has been generated that they do not want public monies, to                     
the point that we are doing it now, to be used on free                         
elective abortions and that abortions should not just be                       
another kind of safe sex option."                                              
                                                                               
"This bill is intended to solve the number one problem that                    
the Governor and the Administration has complained about and                   
that is how General Relief money is spent."                                    
                                                                               
"We made this the lowest priority because even though we                       
talk about poor people all the time not having money, things                   
have dramatically changed in the last 25 years since                           
legalization of abortion.  Many citizens throughout this                       
state and a large number of them receiving abortions have                      
the money - and especially the boyfriend or the male partner                   
has the money.  We always talk about the poor lady, but                        
basically we found out that they do not follow the                             
requirements [unable to decipher]...by settlement by former                    
Commissioner Ted Mala.  The department does not have to                        
check any requirements whatsoever of someone wanting an                        
elective abortion.  They're just like a free bill.  I don't                    
know where the offices are in Anchorage.  They just call 'em                   
up, get an appointment and go in and charge it to the state.                   
The state its looks like that [undecipherable] say well all                    
we're worried about is the major code, what type of                            
abortions did they do.  We don't want to go too personally                     
into the person's qualifications of even being eligible for                    
Medicaid."                                                                     
                                                                               
"So there [are] no guidelines whatsoever, but that's outside                   
this bill.  The bill is: do we want to allow all the money                     
that we appropriate to the General Relief [Medical Program]                    
to be used for abortions as the number one priority and then                   
allow the Administration to constantly say this is not                         
enough money for glasses or emergency dental service."                         
                                                                               
"It's such nature all through the statistics that we've                        
found out that, the chairman and members that - I think once                   
we delve into what's happening as to the abortion policy of                    
Alaska is most disturbing.  For every white child that is                      
aborted, three Native children are aborted. For every white                    
child that is aborted five black children are aborted.  That                   
is a very, very bad policy for the state to follow.  Under                     
the guise of poor is a terrible way to solve your problem of                   
poor people is to abort their children."                                       
                                                                               
"I just think that we can reverse this situation.  We can                      
make the males responsible for paying for their own deeds,                     
their own irresponsible activities rather than just the                        
female suffer through the abortion.  Certainly the public is                   
opposed to public funding of abortion of this nature."                         
                                                                               
"Also by putting this at a lower priority than you will have                   
more money for dental care or other services that are deemed                   
necessary that Medicaid does not pay for."                                     
                                                                               
"I think I'll leave it right there at that point, Mr.                          
Chairman so if you have anyone that has a question.  I do                      
want to say that Alaska is probably the most liberal state                     
in the nation and abortions pay for anything.  We literally                    
have no laws restraining people under government sponsored                     
paid abortions.  Thirty-two states do not pay for abortions.                   
In the last two years, four states that were paying for                        
abortions have now stopped.  I've just got reports this                        
morning that South Carolina legislation approved in the                        
Senate stopped public funding of abortions.  North Carolina                    
did that last year and they went through their state supreme                   
court and it was upheld.  Just because a person has a                          
constitutional right to something doesn't mean that the                        
state will pay for it, whether it be freedom of the press or                   
free speech or free abortions.  Michigan has stopped this                      
state funding of abortion.  They never did allow elective                      
abortions or free abortions.  One other state has solved                       
their problem with the courts and have stopped funding of                      
abortions."                                                                    
                                                                               
"In this case here, we're not asking to stop it, we're                         
asking that it be given a lower priority over other medical                    
needs."                                                                        
                                                                               
Senator Adams understood Section 1 of the bill, however, he                    
asked the representative to go over Section 2 as it had                        
changed one or two times.  Basically he wanted to know what                    
was covered under abortions.  He also wanted to know if                        
there was a definition of physical disorder.                                   
                                                                               
Representative Martin spoke to the changes made to the                         
original bill.  He said the bill was amended during the                        
House debate to allow for abortions in the case of rape,                       
incest and when the life of the mother is in danger.  This                     
was the same as the current law.                                               
                                                                               
Representative Martin brought up the petition he had earlier                   
mentioned.  He offered to share it with any committee                          
members if they were interested in reading the names of                        
people from their community.                                                   
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp moved on and began taking public testimony.                     
He reminded speakers they would be limited to three minutes,                   
and that he would first call on those waiting to testify via                   
teleconference.                                                                
                                                                               
First to be heard was PATRICIA MACK, who was linked to the                     
meeting from Anchorage.  Her testimony was as follows:                         
                                                                               
"The purpose of this - It is unfair to take away the ability                   
for the poorest women in this state to exercise their right                    
to..."                                                                         
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp interrupted, asking her to state her name and                   
any affiliation for the record.  Ms. Mack began again.                         
                                                                               
"My name is Patricia Mark and I'm speaking for myself."                        
                                                                               
"I feel it's unfair to take away the ability for the poorest                   
women in the state to exercise their right to choose, which                    
is what this bill would do."                                                   
                                                                               
"Despite what was said earlier, a lot of these women are                       
poor and just because their boyfriends could pay for their                     
abortion doesn't mean they will pay for an abortion.  It's                     
not so easy to say, 'honey give me some money.'  A lot of                      
these men have either abandoned these women when they found                    
out they were pregnant and just said, 'tough luck, you're on                   
your own.'  That's reality."                                                   
                                                                               
"If a woman can't afford an abortion, an unplanned pregnancy                   
would place an incredible financial burden on her.  And                        
plus, pregnancy would cost the state's general relief                          
program a lot more money than an abortion would, which will                    
mean there is even less money for things such as speech                        
therapy and dental services for the elderly.  So you're                        
really not going to get the results you think you are if you                   
force these poor women to have an abortion - or I mean to                      
have - to go through an unplanned pregnancy."                                  
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp called upon the next person in Anchorage to                     
testify, ROBIN SMITH.  Her testimony was as follows:                           
                                                                               
"I am speaking on behalf of the Pro-Choice Alliance and we                     
have about 3,500 members actively participating here in                        
Anchorage."                                                                    
                                                                               
"I'd like to look at the consequences of this law.  First of                   
all there will be an increased number of second trimester                      
abortions.  No one likes abortions. Most people would agree                    
the later an abortion occurs in a pregnancy, the more                          
objectionable it becomes.  With low-income women, one of the                   
primary reasons to delay an abortion is difficulty in                          
obtaining financing.  This delay also increases the health                     
risk to a woman having an abortion later in the pregnancy."                    
                                                                               
"The negative affect on the family of an unintended                            
pregnancy - and this is according to the Institute of                          
Medicine's report, The Best Intention's 1995 - the mother is                   
more likely to seek prenatal care after the first trimester                    
or receive no prenatal care at all.  She is more likely to                     
expose the fetus to harmful substances, such as tobacco,                       
alcohol or drugs.  The child of an unwanted conception is at                   
greater risk of having low birth weight, of dying in the                       
first year of life and of not receiving sufficient resources                   
for healthy development.  The mother may be at greater risk                    
of physical abuse herself and her relationship with her                        
partner is at a greater risk of dissolution.  Both mother                      
and father may suffer economic hardship and fail to achieve                    
their educational and career goals."                                           
                                                                               
"There's also a negative impact on the unwanted child.  They                   
frequently experience more mental handicaps and are twice as                   
likely to receive psychiatric care at government's expense;                    
are more than twice as likely as wanted children to have a                     
juvenile delinquency record; are six times more likely to                      
receive some form of welfare between the ages of 16 and 21;                    
and are at increased risk of suffering abuse, neglect,                         
abandonment and removal to foster homes or institutions."                      
                                                                               
"This bill would also cause an increase in medical costs to                    
the state as opposed to what Representative Martin said.                       
Nationwide, when public funds are unavailable, 20 percent of                   
Medicaid eligible women, who want to have an abortion, carry                   
their pregnancy to term.  In our state that percentage could                   
approach 40 percent due to poor access and greater travel                      
expenses."                                                                     
                                                                               
"So, had Alaska not paid for 843 abortions last year, then a                   
minimum of 169 births, or 20 percent, would have occurred.                     
Alaska pays $8,617 per pregnancy.  So the total cost would                     
have exceeded $1,456,000 or an increase of $950,000 over the                   
total of last year's abortion expenses.  This does not take                    
into account the child's eligibility for medical care for                      
its first year or any high risk pregnancy costs."                              
                                                                               
"Alaska would be increasing its medical costs and actually                     
decreasing the monies available in the GRM."                                   
                                                                               
"In conclusion, HB 234 is not a cost saving bill as                            
professed.  Its negative affects will only add to our                          
societal woes.  In this era of decreasing welfare benefits -                   
and when we are asking families to be more self-reliant -                      
this bill is a contradiction to provide - we need to be                        
providing support for low-income women and their family's                      
needs."                                                                        
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp attempted to call on a testifier from the                       
Fairbanks teleconference hook-up, but the connection was                       
broken and he moved on to those people waiting to testify in                   
person at Juneau.  He invited CHRISTIAN BOMENGEN, Assistant                    
Attorney General, Human Services Section of the Department                     
of Law to come to the table.  She introduced herself and                       
began speaking:                                                                
                                                                               
"I want to address the fact that this bill has the effect of                   
cutting off abortion funding under the GRN program, except                     
it does provide for an exception for when the life of the                      
pregnant woman is in jeopardy, or in cases of reported cases                   
of incest or rape.  Medicaid coverage generally does require                   
coverage under those circumstances, however under Medicaid,                    
one is not allowed to require the rape or incest be                            
reported."                                                                     
                                                                               
"This does not have an exception for the physical or                           
physiological health of the mother.  Thus it's limiting not                    
only elective procedures as has been represented on                            
occasion, but also other medically indicated procedures."                      
                                                                               
"Even though it's permissible in some states to limit the                      
availability of abortion funding under the federal                             
constitutional test, Alaska's constitution contains explicit                   
privacy protection that has been interpreted as providing                      
more protection to individual liberties than the privacy                       
rights that have been inferred under the federal                               
constitution.  Last year we saw the decision of the Valley                     
Hospital case that more clearly articulated the fact that                      
reproductive rights are fundamental in Alaska; that they're                    
encompassed within our privacy provision; that they may be                     
legally constrained only when the constrains are justified                     
by a compelling state interest and no less restrictive needs                   
could advance the interest."                                                   
                                                                               
"Other states that offer exclusive privacy protection in                       
their constitution though that recognize a higher degree of                    
protection for those individual rights, have determined that                   
when the state provides for any pregnancy related services                     
it must do so in a constitutionally neutral manner.  In                        
other words, even if a state is not obligated to pay for the                   
exercise of the constitutional rights, once it chooses to                      
dispense funds for pregnancy related services, it has to do                    
so in an evenhanded manner nondiscriminatory and cannot                        
withdraw those funds simple because a woman chooses to                         
exercise a constitutionally protected right."                                  
                                                                               
"This principle is also supported in Judge Tan's Superior                      
Court decision in Planned Parenthood via Alaska, which                         
addressed the minor's right to seek an abortion without                        
first having to obtain parental consent.  In that decision,                    
he applied an equal protection test to the governmentally                      
drawn distinction between a minor who chooses to seek an                       
abortion and one who doesn't.  He concluded that the                           
government could not establish a compelling interest to                        
justify the classification of minors in this way.                              
Similarly, the equal protection analysis will apply to the                     
distinction that's now being drawn between adult women who                     
make different reproductive choices."                                          
                                                                               
"The state does not have a compelling state interest that                      
would allow it to withstand the equal protection challenge."                   
                                                                               
"I can refer to a number of state cases in which this                          
principle is elaborated upon.  Minnesota case addresses the                    
question of whether the state can fund child birth related                     
health services without funding abortion services.  That's                     
excluding the woman from receiving benefits solely because                     
they chose to make a constitutionally protected health care                    
decision.  The court determined that the state had to                          
provide public funds for medically necessary or therapeutic                    
abortions.  To not do so impermissibly infringed on a                          
woman's fundamental right of privacy."                                         
                                                                               
"West Virginia's case, when the state government sought to -                   
seeks to act for the common benefit such as it does when it                    
provides medical care to the poor, has an obligation to do                     
so again in a neutral manner."                                                 
                                                                               
There's also Connecticut cases, Massachusetts cases.  I                        
guess if I could just take a few moments, one thing that may                   
be helpful is to draw your attention to a case that was                        
cited in the Minnesota case.  As a parallel that applies the                   
principle of when a government engages in a program it has                     
to do so in a way that doesn't infringe upon the exercise of                   
a constitutional right.  Maybe we could move to a more                         
neutral subject such as religion."                                             
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp asked Ms. Bomengen to summarize as her three-                   
minute time limit had passed.  She continued.                                  
                                                                               
"This is simple, the example I want to state. The court in                     
Minnesota examined a South Carolina decision state rule that                   
said that the - the decision said that the state could not                     
operate its unemployment security program in a manner that                     
infringed on the constitutionally protected right to                           
exercise an individual's religion.  In this case, a man was                    
a Seventh Day Adventist who had refused a job that required                    
him to work on Saturdays.  The court decided there that the                    
state could not condition its availability of those benefits                   
on whether he chose to exercise his constitutionally                           
protected rights."                                                             
                                                                               
That concluded Ms. Bomengen's testimony.  Senator Parnell                      
asked for a copy of her speech.                                                
                                                                               
The teleconference hook-up was reestablished with Fairbanks                    
and Co-Chair Sharp called upon RONNIE ROSENBERG to testify.                    
She spoke as follows:                                                          
                                                                               
"I'm representing the Arctic Alliance For People, which is a                   
consortium of 43 non-profit social service agencies.  We                       
oppose any attempt to cut the general relief program.  I'm                     
not going to get into a long dialog plus or minus abortions.                   
However, I will tell you that we service many, many                            
individuals who are recipients of the General Relief Medical                   
Program.  We would implore you to find the funding somehow                     
to fund this program in its entirety so we do not have to                      
pit people with hearing disabilities against people who need                   
prosthetics against people who need emergency dental care."                    
                                                                               
"Many of our clients are people who would otherwise fall                       
between the cracks.  Many of them are people who are                           
awaiting SSI determination.  I do volunteer SSI appeals.                       
I'm an attorney and I do volunteer SSI appeals and up here                     
it can be three years until we get a written decision.                         
Meanwhile people with seizure disorders and other kinds of                     
medical needs, without General Relief Medical, they would                      
have absolutely no way of receiving medical care and of                        
course their medical conditions would worsen and they would                    
end up in the emergency room at a higher rate of pay."                         
                                                                               
"So however you can fund General Relief Medical, I would ask                   
you all to find the will to fund it in its entirety.  It is                    
very, very necessary for people who are living on less than                    
$300 a month.  And that is basically what I wanted to say on                   
this bill."                                                                    
                                                                               
There were no questions or comments of Ms. Rosenberg.  Co-                     
Chair Sharp resumed calling on people in Juneau to testify.                    
NANCY WALLER from the Division of Medical Assistance,                          
Department of Health and Social Services came to the table.                    
Her testimony was as follows:                                                  
                                                                               
"I would like to address the fiscal note for this bill.  I                     
prepared a fiscal note that's dated 1/23/98 for the CS HB
234 (FIN).  Representative Hanley replaced my fiscal note in                   
the House Finance Committee with his own fiscal note                           
assuming that a small number of women would carry their                        
children to term."                                                             
                                                                               
"I did a lot of research and discovered a study that was                       
conduced in the state of Texas in the two years following                      
the eliminate state funding for abortions there.  The Center                   
for Disease Control reports on this study that in those two                    
years they found that 35 and 40 percent of the low-income                      
women ended up carrying their children to term.  In the                        
fiscal note that I have is based on the 35 percent of the                      
women currently receiving abortions, carrying their babies                     
to term and becoming eligible for the Medicaid programs for                    
themselves and their children.  We believe that a higher                       
percentage is applicable in Alaska because the cost of                         
health care in Alaska is much higher here than it is in the                    
lower 48.  You can get an abortion in Seattle for about                        
$250.  It costs about $600 for our program, largely because                    
of transportation related costs.  Those people have to fly                     
to a different community."                                                     
                                                                               
Senator Parnell asked how, if her fiscal note reflected the                    
costs of children who were going to be born rather than                        
aborted, why that would have any bearing on the                                
transportation costs to Seattle for an abortion.  Ms. Waller                   
replied she felt the higher percentage of women who would                      
carry their children to term and therefore become eligible                     
for Medicaid was applicable in Alaska because of the cost of                   
receiving the abortion procedure in the state.  It was not                     
available in many communities; people had to fly to                            
different communities.                                                         
                                                                               
Senator Parnell wanted to know if her argument for the                         
fiscal note increase was be because of the additional                          
children born who would be eligible for Medicaid.  Ms.                         
Waller said based on the study that was her belief.  She                       
felt the 35 percent birth increase was more defensible than                    
the 20 percent inserted in the House Finance Committee's                       
fiscal version of the fiscal note.                                             
                                                                               
Senator Parnell questioned if the lack of availability of                      
abortion services didn't come into play, would the                             
division's version of the fiscal note talk about the cost of                   
providing health care for children who would be in the                         
Medicaid system.  Ms. Waller argued that a higher percentage                   
of birth and higher health care costs for the children who                     
would automatically be eligible for Medicaid during their                      
first year of life.                                                            
                                                                               
Senator Adams noted that his bill packet didn't have a copy                    
of the fiscal note drafted by the Division of Medical                          
Assistance.  He only had the fiscal note written by the                        
House Finance Committee.  He expressed a desire for all                        
members to have a copy of the earlier version for                              
consideration and comparison.                                                  
                                                                               
Senator Parnell countered that the only fiscal note the                        
committee should be looking at was the one that traveled                       
with the bill.  If the committee decided to draft a new                        
version, they could debate past versions at that time.                         
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp called upon DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director of                     
the Division of Public Health, Department of Health and                        
Social Services.  He spoke as follows:                                         
                                                                               
"Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'll take just a                      
few seconds of my three minutes to again promote Public                        
Health Week to you all and encourage our parents [watching                     
the proceedings] on TV to get their children immunized.                        
They're not doing a good job now and we'd like to do                           
better."                                                                       
                                                                               
I'd like to use the rest of my three minutes just to state                     
that on all the abortion bills that I've been testifying on,                   
we've run into significant controversy because of the                          
reasons for people participating in the debate are all                         
different.  We're not all in it for the same reason.  Some                     
are in it for moral and religious reasons.  Some are in it                     
for economic reasons.  Frankly, I'm coming from one                            
perspective and that's health.  As a director of Public                        
Health, I feel that we need to comment on the health                           
implications of such a bill."                                                  
                                                                               
"There's no question - and I challenge anyone to debate me,                    
on this that we'll have more unwanted children born in                         
Alaska.  We'll have more children who will be subject to                       
child abuse.  We already have 15,000 cases reported a year                     
of child abuse and neglect.  We can expect a significant                       
number of these kids to end up in that situation."                             
                                                                               
"We're going to have more domestic violence.  We have                          
studies showing that unwed parents of unwanted children are                    
subject to greater degrees of violence.  In Alaska we're one                   
of the leaders in that area."                                                  
                                                                               
"We're going to find that there will be a larger number of                     
kids in the state who didn't get the opportunity to get the                    
education and pursue a career because they had to dedicate                     
their life at a very early age to be a mother.  Something                      
that they were not ready for at this point."                                   
                                                                               
"So I guess basically the bottom line is that the costs to                     
the State Of Alaska in terms of medical and health related                     
problems would be very significantly increased by such a                       
bill."                                                                         
                                                                               
"One other comment I'd like to make about the bill itself,                     
is that it gives exceptions for a number of conditions: if                     
the mother's life is at risk or if the lady who's pregnant                     
was raped or if there's incest.  But nowhere does it make an                   
allowance for a mental problem.  There are individuals who                     
are pregnant and who suffer significant mental distress that                   
could result in further medical and physical complications.                    
These people are not addressed.  They are excluded."                           
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp asked how the doctor would control the level                    
of mental distress.  Was he talking about a previous mental                    
disorder, he wondered?  Dr. Nakamura replied it could be a                     
previous mental disorder or it could be brought on by the                      
present state of pregnancy.  Co-Chair Sharp indicated that                     
was what he was afraid of.  Dr. Nakamura stressed there was                    
always concern about potential suicide or self-induced                         
medical problems such as self-induced abortions on these                       
individuals who didn't have the ability to handle it because                   
of their mental distress.                                                      
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp reopened the topic on immunization admitting                    
that it wasn't the focus of this meeting, but noting the                       
public health director had mentioned it twice to the                           
committee during the day.  He asked why the immunization                       
rates had deteriorated so much since he was a child and                        
didn't have a choice.  He had been immunized before being                      
released from the hospital.  Why wasn't that done now, he                      
questioned.  Dr. Nakamura answered saying the number of                        
vaccines increased significantly.  The number of shots when                    
up from about 10 to 18 to complete a series.  He added that                    
the population had doubled since 1980.  Therefore, he                          
concluded there were more children, more vaccines and more                     
diseases to protect them from, while there had been no                         
increase in resources to meet the need.                                        
                                                                               
Dr. Nakamura talked of another reason for the decline in                       
immunizations, which was due to the success in reducing                        
outbreaks of the diseases.  Because of this, parents were                      
getting complacent and not having their children immunized                     
in a timely manner, he disclosed.  He quoted statistics of                     
expected cases of various diseased were the immunizations                      
not received.                                                                  
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp asked if it were mandatory for children to be                   
current on their shots before they would be allowed to enter                   
school.  Dr. Nakamura told him it was, but the problem was                     
the need to protect children before they reached the age of                    
three.                                                                         
                                                                               
Senator Phillips questioned if there was a religious                           
exemption to the requirement.  Dr. Nakamura affirmed there                     
was.                                                                           
                                                                               
Dr. Nakamura thanked the committee for allowing him to speak                   
further on the issue.                                                          
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp called on the next witness, LIZ DODD,                           
President of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union.  Her                            
testimony was as follows:                                                      
                                                                               
"First point, I wanted to respond to the sponsor's statement                   
that this what the people want.  I believe the last time                       
this exact proposal was before the voters in the state, they                   
voted to keep the funding in place.  I'd also like to                          
respond to a statement that Alaska Natives are receiving GRM                   
abortions at the rate of three to one of white people.  I                      
think what that means to me is that if this passes, that                       
Native population would be three times more discriminated                      
against by virtue of being denied the access that they're                      
entitled to."                                                                  
                                                                               
"The ACLU - I've talked to the lawyer who handled this case                    
when the Hickel Administration tried to pass regulations                       
removing GRM funding in 1992.  The ACLU sued the state.                        
They settled with us and the regulations were never                            
implemented.  I've talked to the lawyer who handled that                       
case.  She assures me that this law is patently                                
unconstitutional under the Valley Hospital case.  I just                       
want to make a point that even if all of the constitutional                    
amendments that seek to quote, overturn the Valley Hospital                    
case are passed by this Legislature, those changes to the                      
constitution will not reach the fundamental decision in that                   
case that the woman has a fundamental right to an abortion.                    
The state can't interfere with it.  I won't go on and on                       
about that, just ask you to take a look at the letter I sent                   
today that talks about how defunding for poor women                            
interferes with their ability to exercise their                                
constitutional rights."                                                        
                                                                               
"I'll ask you not to pass the bill out of committee for the                    
simple reason that it won't stand, that it's unlawful.  It's                   
a political measure not a good piece of legislation.  I hope                   
do the right thing there."                                                     
                                                                               
Senator Phillips commented that the best argument was the                      
vote in 1992.                                                                  
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp called upon BETH KERTULLA to testify next.                      
She introduced herself as an attorney representing herself                     
and continued as follows:                                                      
                                                                               
"The legislation would potentially deny poor women the                         
choice to have an abortion, but would allow them the choice                    
to carry a pregnancy to term.  I believe this would be a                       
denial of equal protection and that our courts would                           
overrule it, and it's an unfortunate step backward."                           
                                                                               
That concluded Ms. Kertulla's testimony and Co-Chair Sharp                     
called CAREN ROBINSON.  She spoke representing the Alaska                      
Women's Lobby and said the following:                                          
                                                                               
"Most of you know the Alaska Women's Lobby has a supportive                    
membership of at least 1,000 within the state.  Kinda feel                     
like we're here as de ja vue and not under any illusion that                   
what we have to say today is going to change any of your                       
minds.  But I guess I do believe it's really important to                      
remind everyone that this bill is harmful to women's health                    
and unfairly discriminates against poor women who chooses to                   
exercise her constitutional rights."                                           
                                                                               
"Low income women have often have difficult time raising the                   
money to pay an abortion and according to one study, they                      
need an average of twice as much time to raise the necessary                   
funds than do middle or upper-income women.  Also according                    
to an American Medical study..."                                               
                                                                               
Tape #120 Side B, 5:25 p.m.                                                    
                                                                               
"...federal funding restrictions that deter or delay women                     
from seeking early abortions make it more likely that women                    
will continue a potential health threatening pregnancy to                      
term or undergo abortion procedures that would endanger                        
their health."                                                                 
                                                                               
"Mr. Chairman, the funding for abortions under general                         
relief programs should be handled like all other pregnancy                     
related services and not singled out just because some of us                   
object to this particular medical procedure."                                  
                                                                               
"The bottom line, no matter what you may believe                               
philosophically about abortions and funding priorities, as a                   
practical matter, this bill will lead to unwanted                              
pregnancies, children having children and more back alley                      
and self-induced abortions.  That is a great step backward                     
and we believe that fact alone is good enough reason to                        
leave this bill behind.  I wish that Senator Pearce was here                   
again to day because I just really hope that you guys will                     
please pull off the shelf, three-a-day children having                         
children and please look at the recommendation within that                     
report and continue to work with us in trying to find ways                     
to help people have planned pregnancies and do what we can                     
to stop children from having children."                                        
                                                                               
Senator Parnell understood her argument, but emphasized this                   
bill would put abortion and related services and supplies in                   
a place on the Medicaid priority list, where if funding was                    
cut on the Medicaid funding list, it would be the first item                   
to go.  Why should elective abortions be treated as more                       
important on a priority list than hearing aids for seniors,                    
eyeglasses for children etc., he asked.  Ms. Robinson                          
responded that funding for abortion procedures belonged in                     
the same place on the priority list as every other pregnancy                   
related services.  She gave herself as an example and said                     
that if she were pregnant and decided to carry her baby to                     
term, she should be in the same priority position than if                      
she were to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy.                      
Subjecting abortion procedures to a different standard was                     
what her organization objected.                                                
                                                                               
Senator Parnell noted that eyeglasses and optometrist                          
services were already in a different standard than                             
prosthetic devices on the priority list.  He questioned why                    
abortions should be treated different.  He felt they were                      
all very personal medical choices.  Ms. Robinson repeated                      
her argument that all pregnancy related medical services                       
should be categorized the same.  She took the opportunity to                   
go on record supporting the position of the Arctic Alliance.                   
She felt more importantly, anyone in need of any type of                       
medical care should receive that care.                                         
                                                                               
This concluded public testimony for this bill.  Co-Chair                       
Sharp held the bill until the full committee could be                          
present to deliberate.                                                         
                                                                               
Senator Parnell requested a brief recess at 5:33 p.m.  The                     
committee resumed less than a minute later.                                    
                                                                               
Co-Chair Sharp announced the next scheduled committee                          
meeting to be Wednesday, April 15 at 9:00 a.m.                                 
                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects