Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/20/1998 01:55 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SJR 37 - CONST AM: MINORS' ABORTIONS
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called up SJR 37 as the next order of business and
announced his intention to rotate testimony in order to accommodate
as many people as possible.
MR. KEVIN CLARKDSON, testified via teleconference from Anchorage,
counsel to Concerned Alaska Parents. MR. CLARKDSON cited several
reasons why SJR 37 is a good idea, including cost. MR. CLARKDSON
said the cost of putting this question on the ballot is $3,000,
while litigating the issue might cost up to a million. MR.
CLARKDSON also commented that this bill would assure the will of
the Alaska people shall be done. MR. CLARKDSON noted that other
parental consent provisions have already been approved by the U.S.
Supreme Court and concluded that the issue should be decided by the
people of Alaska.
Number 205
MS. ELIZABETH ARNDORFER, staff attorney for the National Abortion
and Reproductive Rights Action League, testified via teleconference
from Washington, D.C.. MS. ARNDORFER presented four points in
opposition to SJR 37: first, she said most minors do involve one or
both parents in this decision and it is impossible to mandate
healthy family communication. Second, MS. ARNDORFER stated that
several medical associations including the American Medical
Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine and the American
Public Health Association, oppose parental involvement laws, saying
they can often harm those they propose to protect, especially in
abusive families. Third, MS. ARNDORFER said many women find it
impossible to attend judicial bypass hearings because of
intimidation and concerns about confidentiality, particularly in
rural areas. Also, MS. ARNDORFER said some judges are vehemently
anti-choice and routinely deny petitions. Last, MS. ARNDORFER said
the Constitution should be an enduring document which enshrines
broad principles. She suggested that if SJR 37 is passed, the
citizens of Alaska should fear the Legislature may change the
Constitution every two years. MS. ARNDORFER concluded by urging the
committee to focus on reducing unintended pregnancies.
Number 307
MS. JANET KREPS also testified via teleconference from Denver,
Colorado. MS. KREPS represented the Center for Reproductive Law and
Policy and opposed the bill. MS. KREPS indicated she is co-counsel
for the plaintiffs in the case Planned Parenthood vs. State of
Alaska, and expressed a desire for the court to decide the matter.
She said the bill seems premature and suggested it will undermine
the health and well-being of women by delaying medical treatment.
MS. KREPS said the California Supreme Court recently concluded that
the parental consent requirement would; "injure the asserted
interest of the health of minors and the parent/child
relationship." MS. KREPS explained that the fact that proponents
continue to pursue ineffective, unconstitutional measures
illustrates that this is an anti-abortion agenda and not the well-
being of minors that drives this legislation. MS. KREPS said the
amendment would be more accurately characterized if it simply
stated that minor women seeking abortions do not enjoy the same
rights of privacy or equal protection afforded all other Alaskans
by their Constitution.
MS. DEBORAH JOSLIN, District Chair of the Republican Party of
Alaska, thought it was interesting that a person from Washington,
D.C. would be concerned with Alaskans changing their Constitution.
She said it is healthy for a teenager to fear telling her parents
she is pregnant. She told a story in which another parent reported
to her that his 14-year-old daughter had been counseled to get an
abortion by a public school counselor. MS. JOSLIN said the point is
that the state has no business to invade the right of a family and
rule against parental consent. She concluded that pro-choice groups
are all for choice when the choice is abortion. She urged passage
of SJR 37.
Number 350
MS. CONNIE PAGE, mother of two daughters, said this legislation
does not make much sense if it forces young women to get consent
for an abortion if they do not have to get consent to carry a
pregnancy to term. She would hope her daughters would come to her
for counsel during their life decisions, but wants that to be their
decision, not the state's. MS. PAGE said there are too many bad
families to force this discussion and she fears it will end in
teens attempting to self-abort. MS. PAGE wondered why some
legislators seem so intent on controlling women; men are half of
the problem and we aren't focusing on them. She cited a study that
found 66 per cent of pregnancies born to underage girls are
fathered by adult men. She personally knows of these instances
happening in Alaska, and suggested if the legislature is truly
determined to decrease the number of teen birth and the abortion
rate they should focus on men for a while. MS. PAGE said, without
this focus, the bill simply looks like an attempt on the part of
some legislators to control women. MS. Page added that her
grandmother forced her mother, when she was a young woman, to have
an abortion she would not have had. The legislation can go both
ways, she concluded.
MS. SHARON WAISANEN testified via teleconference from Kenai in
opposition to SJR 37, saying the bill seems like an attempt to take
away the protections of women provided in the Constitution. She
indicated the legislators are not elected to legislate personal
religious values. MS. WAISANEN said communication cannot be
legislated and the legislature should instead fund education and
support family planning in order to prevent teen pregnancy. She
urged the defeat of SJR 37.
MS. RACHEL WAGNER, a teen parent, said this legislation is part of
a male-dominated coercion of female sexuality. MS. WAGNER suggested
this legislation tries to punish the least powerful women in order
to teach them a lesson. She indicated that attempting to legislate
morality will not change the poverty rate. MS. WAGNER suggested
this bill is an attempt by the Republicans to override womens'
rights, and asked where the line between church and state has gone.
Number 415
MS. ELEANOR ANDREWS, from Anchorage, agreed with an earlier speaker
saying this legislation is premature and the issue should be
allowed to proceed through the court system. MS. ANDREWS said she
believes the bill is really about restricting the right to
abortion. MS. ANDREWS remarked that it is intrusive for individual
male legislators to try and legislate their personal religious
beliefs. She resides in SENATOR LEMAN's district and has seen no
groundswell of support for this legislation.
MS. RAMONA DUBY testified against SJR 37, citing three reasons.
First, MS. DUBY said the Constitution has no business telling the
whole state how they should live. Second, MS. DUBY suggested this
legislation would be extremely difficult to implement. Finally, Ms.
DUBY recalled the pledge of allegiance and did not remember it
saying "with liberty and justice for all, except young pregnant
women." She concluded the bill is premature and unnecessary.
MS. LEILA WISE testified in opposition to SJR 37, saying it is not
always feasible nor prudent for women to involve their parents,
though children in healthy families generally do. MS. WISE said
this action is premature and in her opinion an inappropriate mix of
the legislative and judicial branches. The Constitution is a sacred
document and we shouldn't be dinking around with it. MS. WISE said
someone suggested this bill will save money; she finds that
humorous as the expense is a direct result of the Legislature
passing bills that are unconstitutional. She suggested if they
truly want to lessen costs, they shouldn't pass unconstitutional
bills. MS. WISE restated the idea that the Legislature can't
legislate healthy families and suggested they could make better use
of their time by supporting the Smart Start initiative.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what is the difference between an abortion
and another medical procedure like an appendectomy that requires
parental consent. MS. WISE said CHAIRMAN TAYLOR was mixing apples
and oranges, as an appendectomy does not have long standing
repercussions on the life of the young woman. She said it further
does not condemn a young woman and her children to a life of
poverty.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked, because of the reproductive aspect of this
procedure, the child should make this decision, but in other
medical procedures the parents should consent. MS. WISE said any
young woman should consult with her family before becoming sexually
active, but it can't be forced, and in some cases it would not be
safe to do so.
MS. WISE asked CHAIRMAN TAYLOR if a young woman, raped by her
father, should be forced to consult her father if she wished to get
an abortion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied that this was a silly question
and of course she should not. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR explained this was a
case for the judicial bypass provision. MS. WISE asked why this
woman should have to expose her life to a judge and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
said other children of parents who do not believe in medical
treatment have to do just that in order to get any kind of
necessary treatment.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if MS. WISE was familiar with the judicial
bypass process in SB 24, saying her questions led him to believe
she was not. SENATOR LEMAN said the process is prompt, free, and
can be conducted telephonically. MS. WISE replied this did not
change her mind about it.
SENATOR LEMAN said this bill just incorporates a provision already
approved by all nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court. MS. WISE
commented that she still felt it was inappropriate to pass this
legislation while the appeal was pending.
Senator LOREN LEMAN said he was glad to see a roomful of people
interested in the bill and wanted to cover a few points for those
people who seem misguided about what the legislation is all about.
SENATOR LEMAN said sometimes deep-seated feelings about the topic
of abortion cloud people's ability to rationalize about what the
legislation actually does. SENATOR LEMAN said this resolution
allows the opportunity to place in the Constitution a section that
will confirm the Legislature's authority to enact legislation
requiring parental involvement in a minor's decision about
abortion; he indicated that 80 per cent of Alaskans support this.
SENATOR LEMAN said the legislature overrode the Governor's veto
after exhaustive debate, adding a new judicial bypass provision to
Alaska's existing statute on parental consent. SENATOR LEMAN said
Alaska has had a judicial bypass statute on the books since 1970.
SENATOR LEMAN said Planned Parenthood, along with two abortion
doctors, brought a suit in an attempt to stop enforcement of the
law. SENATOR LEMAN said 39 states have parental consent provisions
on their books and they work. He stated that the U.S. Supreme Court
has ruled many times in favor of the constitutionality of these
provisions.
SENATOR LEMAN said he was saddened but not surprised by the Alaska
Court ruling this provision unconstitutional, even without
considering all the facts. SENATOR LEMAN said the deciding judge
ignored at least four previous decisions upholding the placement of
restrictions on minors to protect them from their own immaturity.
SENATOR LEMAN said the Alaska Court's decision undermined the
federal rights of parents to provide moral guidance for their
children.
TAPE 98-19, Side B
Number 001
SENATOR LEMAN indicated that this legislation will bring an end to
a lawsuit we can ill afford, and would end the inability of the
state to enforce this law while the issue is litigated. He advised
this issue should be taken out of the hands of unelected,
unaccountable judges and place them in the hands of the voters.
SENATOR ELLIS asked SENATOR LEMAN if Alaska's Constitution is
different from that of other states and SENATOR LEMAN replied that
all states have Constitutions that are different.
SENATOR ELLIS found it interesting that SENATOR LEMAN cited cost
savings as a reason to circumvent the court process, considering
he has not shown a great deal of interest in the arguments showing
the cost savings of decreasing unintended pregnancy. SENATOR LEMAN
responded by saying his concern for families has been demonstrated
during his 10 years of service in the Legislature, and this seems
to him that SENATOR ELLIS is questioning his motives. SENATOR LEMAN
said SENATOR ELLIS is out of order. SENATOR ELLIS said no personal
offense was intended, but he could not help but point out the fact
that many members of the body have not shown a great deal of
concern in preventing unintended pregnancies. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
commented that no one claims to have a monopoly on compassion.
MS. BETTYE DAVIS, former representative from Anchorage, spoke in
opposition to SJR 37. MS. DAVIS asked what the urgency was, saying
the bill will not help anyone. MS. DAVIS agreed with points made by
the previous speakers and commented that the bill will work both
ways and some unwilling young women may be forced to have
abortions. MS. DAVIS said there are many more important issues
facing the legislature and she sees nothing positive coming out of
this constitutional amendment.
Number 520
SENATOR LEMAN responded that these questions had been answered in
his testimony. He said the issue is not abortion, but parental
involvement. SENATOR LEMAN said this bill has nothing to do with
the women in the room, who are concerned with protecting their so-
called right to an abortion. SENATOR LEMAN said there is nothing
more important than protecting the lives of Alaska's children.
BETTYE DAVIS said this amendment will not protect children. She
said these things have traditionally been taken care of within
families without involvement by the legislature. She urged the
committee to stop this bill here and move on with more important
issues.
MS. JULIE VAN DRIEL, a mother and a mental health nurse from
Douglas spoke in opposition to SJR 37. MS. VAN DRIEL said many of
the clients she sees are deeply touched by this issue, and by
issues of sexual and emotional abuse. MS. VAN DRIEL restated the
idea that young women in healthy families will talk to their
parents about this decision, but, to protect women of all ages, she
opposes the bill. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MS. VAN DRIEL if she works
daily as a counselor and she clarified that she is a psychiatric
nurse. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if she had been operating under the
existing law that does not require consent. MS. VAN DRIEL replied
that many of the women she sees do not know they are protected, she
said many of them are abused within the family and she sees them
after their choice has already been made. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if
MS. VAN DRIEl had occasion to counsel young pregnant women and MS.
VAN DRIEL said usually by the time she sees them they have become
suicidal or have run away from home. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what she
recommends to those women. MS. VAN DRIEL said she generally
encourages women to speak with their families, but leaves the
decision to the psychiatrist. She said she has never known a
counselor to recommend an abortion, in her experience, counselors
always advise teen women to speak with their parents. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR surmised it would be a rare instance in which the bill would
be triggered and MS. VAN DRIEL said in these cases women are likely
to attempt self-abortion or commit suicide.
Number 425
DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director of the Division of Public Health,
testified to the fact that normal, healthy families communicate
about this kind of situation. However, the prevalence of unhealthy,
abusive families in Alaska makes this bill an unworkable solution.
He proposed that the legislature cannot wave a magic wand and turn
the parents of these families into normal, responsible people who
will not harm their children. DR. NAKAMURA cited section 22 of the
Alaska Constitution which guarantees that the right to privacy for
each Alaskan shall not be infringed. He suggested that infringing
this right and forcing a confrontation within families will result
in no benefit at all.
SENATOR PARNELL asked where the judicial bypass fit into this
scenario. DR. NAKAMURA said the judicial bypass is a very
intimidating procedure for children who are already having a
difficult time. These children, who may live in remote rural areas,
may not have an easy time facing a judge, even by telephone.
SENATOR PARNELL said judges make telephonic decisions all the time,
and added this procedure is allowed by the U.S. Constitution. DR.
NAKAMURA remarked that if the Legislature had the answer to this
problem, they wouldn't be attempting to change our unique
Constitution.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that it would not be more inconvenient
for a young girl to face a magistrate than to fly to Anchorage and
get an abortion. DR. NAKAMURA replied that some young women may be
ignorant of the procedure and may end up delayed in finding
services. He said this would hinder their ability to make a choice.
DR. NAKAMURA argued that a child is capable of choosing not to
bring a child into a bad situation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that DR. NAKAMURA had spent his life
employing logical premises. Considering this, CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked
why "good family values" allow for parental involvement in any
child's appendectomy, but not in her abortion. DR. NAKAMURA replied
that a child needing emergency services will receive them with or
without her parent's consent. In the case of pregnancy, if the only
option is to force the child into the hands of her abusive parents,
there is no option. In medicine, all options are assessed in order
to find the best one. If it was determined that a woman may be
abused by her family another option such as the judicial bypass
procedure might be pursued. If this was not a feasible option for
the young woman, DR. NAKAMURA reported that many young women might
attempt to self-abort.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR repeated his question as to what logic insists on
parental involvement in all other medical procedures except this
one. DR. NAKAMURA replied it is the same logic that the Supreme
Court used in deciding to exempt certain services from parental
notification (i.e., venereal disease, prenatal care), which carry
such social stigmas that the good of the services outweighs the
harm. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if DR. NAKAMURA advocated expanding the
category of medical necessities not requiring parental
notification. DR. NAKAMURA replied he would only retain the
services that currently fall under that category.
SENATOR LEMAN said that section 22 of the Constitution says it,
"shall be implemented by the Legislature" and that is just what
they have done. SENATOR LEMAN said he served in Legislature when
the privacy clause was adopted and now he rues the day he voted for
it, as he would have never imagined it would apply here. SENATOR
LEMAN commented that the courts have abused the intent of the right
to privacy, and have erred. He trusts the Alaska Supreme Court will
find this out, but, just in case, he supports this amendment.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if CHAIRMAN TAYLOR intended to act on this
today and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied yes.
MR. SID HEIRSDORF, representing Alaskans for Life, supported the
bill and thanked the sponsors. He agreed with SENATOR LEMAN that
the courts have made many bad decisions of late. He said he finds
the phrase "compelling state interest" a terrible one when it means
killing babies. Mr. HEIRSDORF said the law is nothing more than
what some judge says it is and he appreciates the Legislature
taking action to correct this.
MR. HEIRSDORF said the problem that exists now is the result of
raising abortion to the status of a constitutional right, which is
like saying one plus one is three. Now this is keeping parents from
having a say in a serious medical procedure. MR. HEIRSDORF believes
that children have neither the vision nor the maturity it takes to
make this "life or death" decision.
MR. HEIRSDORF said the Legislature should not focus on
dysfunctional families but should first help healthy families.
TAPE 98-20, SIDE A
Number 001
MR. HEIRSDORF said this bill may help some families by promoting
communication. He added this bill would open up other areas to
children, such as marriage. SENATOR LEMAN remarked that this is
"our chance to tell the courts they are overruled."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that it is hypocritical when a woman teacher
having an affair with a minor student goes to jail when there are
plenty of men out there carrying on relationships with young women.
MS. SUSAN REEVE testified via teleconference about two
constitutional rights: privacy and free speech. She mentioned that
when those who testify are interrogated by committee members and
others, it creates a chilling effect on public testimony. She
remarked that the public can hear the senators talk anytime.
MS. REEVE disputed the statistic that reports 80 per cent of the
voters favor this bill, she noted that 74 people came out to
testify on this bill and only three have spoken in support of it.
She indicated that in a recent Anchorage press conference, 10
organizations representing more than 3,000 in the state came
together and heard discussion by eight speakers, all of whom
opposed the bill. She asked the committee to read and consider the
statement that came out of that press conference and to defeat the
bill.
Number 120
MS. NANCY COON also testified via teleconference in opposition to
the bill, saying she is a parent firmly against parental consent
who has nothing wrong with her family values. MS. COON suggested
that this is too specific an issue to be included in our
Constitution and restated the idea that family communication cannot
be forced. MS. COON said this bill seems predicated on the
assumption that children are parental property, an archaic idea she
does not embrace. MS. COON commented that it's is dangerous to
single out any one particular group and deny their basic human
rights. She argued it is more important to spend time and money on
education, and thinks the committee is motivated to pass this bill
out of fear that the court will rule against them. She is sorry to
see amendments to the Constitution driven by a committee that fears
losing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR remarked that the only poll that counts is
the one held at election time.
MS. ALIA HUNTER, a 17-year-old from Mat-Su, cited a statistic of 61
per cent of teens who would tell their parents if they were
pregnant without being compelled to. MS. HUNTER argued that the
breakdown of the family occurs first and an abortion only after
that. She believed that some parents will force their daughters to
have an abortion and this will result in the teen becoming pregnant
again. She said young women who have abortions are more likely than
their parenting counterparts to finish high school and be better
off economically, and she added they are no more likely to suffer
psychological problems.
MS. HUNTER recalled a case in Idaho where a young woman who had
been raped by her father was forced, under a parental consent
clause, to ask her father permission for an abortion. He murdered
her.
MS. HUNTER feared this bill would lead to more second trimester
abortions, increasing the risk to the woman.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that when he was 17, he hated parental
consent also.
MS. NANCY ROLLINS reflected that she found CHAIRMAN TAYLOR's remark
to the previous speaker very demeaning. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied it
was not intended as such. MS. ROLLINS repeated several points
previously made in speaking in opposition to this bill. She
mentioned that teens are able to receive birth services without
parental consent, including a caesarian section and delivery, as
well as abortion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MS. ROLLINS how many teens are impregnated
against their will, saying those "mature" people had initially made
the choice to get pregnant in the first place. MS. ROLLINS replied
that regardless of age, 53 per cent of births (not just
conceptions) are from unplanned pregnancies. She said this figure
is the same throughout the U.S. and it is an American phenomenon,
not a teenage one. She said this is a wide class of people and the
discussion should be about all of those who become pregnant
unintentionally, and not just single out teenagers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said juveniles are a separate class of individuals
and already have limited rights. MS. ROLLINS countered that they
have the right to make this decision on their own now, and the
bottom line is it is their life and they are ultimately responsible
for it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR restated his question about parental consent for
other things and MS. ROLLINS replied that kids can and do have sex
without their parents' consent and they can also have an HIV test,
or a chlamydia test, as well as consent to birth services. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR noted that people engaging in sex with children under 13 can
be prosecuted, and asked MS. ROLLINS if she questioned parental
consent in all other areas. MS. ROLLINS said there are public
health and privacy considerations that distinguish this act from
others.
MS. JUDITH COTTRELL, a 20-year-old woman with a 1-year-old son,
said she does not appreciate the bill. MS. COTTRELL believes
abortion is a woman's right, as they are the ones to bear children,
not men.
Number 370
MS. BETTY HALL, representing Black Americans for Life, detailed an
example in which a young woman had planned to get an abortion and,
after talking to her mother decided against it and now, as an
adult, travels around the country speaking against abortion. MS.
HALL also made the point that, even if they do not give their
consent for a minor daughter's abortion, her parents will be liable
for any costs of treatment for complications, as well as being
required to consent for these additional procedures. MS. Hall said
those people who take over the parents role in counseling a young
woman to get an abortion should also be willing to take over the
financial burden of paying for any resultant complications.
MS. VENITA ROCKSTAD testified via teleconference in opposition to
the bill, saying if the goal is parental involvement it will be too
late; the parents are obviously not involved or the young woman
wouldn't be pregnant. MS. ROCKSTAD declared this bill will bring
unwanted children into an unwanted environment, which will help no
one. She asked why there was no legislation pending regarding the
father of these children. She said she is still waiting to see a
bill that will help someone. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that she was the
first speaker to raise the issue of the father. He stated that he
had suggested legislation to give the father rights in the decision
for the woman to have an abortion or carry the child to term. MS.
ROCKSTAD asked if the father is going to carry, bear and raise the
child and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied there are laws on the books which
require the father, and even his parents in the case of a minor
father, to provide support for the child. MS. ROCKSTAD retorted
that supporting a child financially is not being a parent. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR said maybe the father should raise the child and MS.
ROCKSTAD responded by saying she'd like to see a man breast-feed.
MR. JOHN MONAGLE, a Juneau local, voiced his support for the
legislation. He said both sides agree that there should be fewer
teenage pregnancies and he asserted that removing parental
involvement is tantamount to telling the kids to be sexually
promiscuous. MR. MONAGLE also said that the people should decide
this issue and he urged the committee pass the bill out.
Number 457
Ms. LISA BLACHER stated three reasons for her opposition to the
bill. First, the Constitution is a document that should not be
changed on the whim of an individual Legislature and Alaskans
should be wary of these attempts to deprive us of our personal
freedoms. Second, MS. BLACHER said judicial bypass might work in a
perfect world, but in the real world will lead to delays and
complications. Third, the legislation will never stop teen sex, nor
will it be able to increase family communication. She urged the
committee to hold it in committee.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how many young women actually have had to go
through a judicial bypass procedure since the bill went into
effect. He would also like to know how many have been denied an
abortion.
LISA BLACHER came forward again and observed that part of the
problem with judicial bypass is that the judge's decision may be
influenced by his or her personal view on abortion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
replied that he was looking for actual numbers in Alaska cases.
MR. MIKE PAULEY, staff to SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, indicated that there
are no Alaska statistics because the restraining order on the
legislation went into effect before the bill itself became law. MR.
PAULEY also stated that the approval rate in judicial bypass
proceedings in other states has been more than 90 per cent.
DR. PETER NAKAMURA said that in one state there were 12,000 cases
reviewed and less than a dozen were denied. However, he believes
the system is an imposition and is arbitrary and ineffective.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that the testimony had suggested that many
women had already been denied.
Number 536
MS. BETH KERTTULA, a member of the Alaska Bar Association since
1981, testified on her own behalf in opposition to the legislation.
MS. KERTTULA observed that this legislation reaches far down into
the court in order to remove this decision from the court system
and place it before the legislature. She sees this as a disturbing
trend and a breakdown of the structure of power and suggested the
legislature should allow the case to proceed through the court
system. Regarding the equal protection issue, MS. KERTTULA observed
that a young woman who is pregnant is allowed to make all decisions
regarding that pregnancy, including the decision to have a
caesarian section or an epidural; this is the heart of the equal
protection clause. She said if the decision to follow one path is
allowed, the decision to follow another path must also be
permitted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MS. KERTTULA how we, as a society, can impose
a lesser level of rights on juveniles, but seem to confer more
rights to a young woman who becomes pregnant. MS. KERTTULA replied
that this decision is based on a constitutionally protected
fundamental right versus other decisions which are not.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the child is under the age of legal consent to
have sex. MS. KERTTULA restated that the issue is consistency, and,
if the child becomes pregnant she is able to make all the
subsequent decisions concerning that pregnancy. MS. KERTTULA
observed that it is constitutionally illogical to allow one route
and not the other. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said it must be a medical
miracle for a young woman to carry a pregnancy to term without her
parent's knowledge or consent.
Number 553
MS. REBECCA BRAUN testified to her strong opposition to the bill,
and to parental consent in general. MS. BRAUN said parental consent
laws do not foster communication and erroneously assume that all
parents are functional, good parents. She said the judicial bypass
provision doesn't account for the intimidation a pregnant teen
would feel facing the court system. MS. BRAUN also related that she
has heard that judges either routinely approve or routinely deny
judicial bypass petitions, and she believes this procedure puts
undue stress on a young woman and is a waste of time and energy.
MS. BRAUN said a young woman denied may attempt to commit suicide
or try to obtain an illegal abortion. She stated one case in which
an abortion was denied a 17 +-year-old college bound woman who said
she was not emotionally nor financially prepared for college and
motherhood. The judge stated that the girl "had not had enough hard
knocks in her life." CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he would like to hear the
rest of this story and would want to know if the decision was
appealed and overturned. SENATOR PARNELL mentioned that MS. BRAUN
seemed to assume that judges deciding on judicial bypass were
making decisions based on their values, he asked then what about
the judges who declared the prior bill unconstitutional. SENATOR
PARNELL maintained that you cannot set up one set of judges as
inferior to another for deciding against what you believe in.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if she had statistics different from those
quoted by DR. NAKAMURA. MS. BRAUN had no statistics.
Number 490
MS. BRAUN set forth that even though she believes the voters will
reject this amendment, the campaign itself will be divisive and
she'd rather see both side devoting their energy to reducing the
underlying problem of teen pregnancy.
MS. BRAUN stated that pregnancy and childbirth are far more risky
and have far more long term ramifications than abortion and no
state in the nation requires parental consent for teen birthing
services. She also remarked that other medical procedures are
value-neutral and do not cause the rage, shame, disapproval and
other emotions that accompany teen pregnancy, and this is what sets
them apart from other procedures. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR interjected that
some religious groups are totally opposed to any medical procedure,
effectively making all medical treatment value-laden. MS. BRAUN
replied that, in the majority of American households, teen
pregnancy creates the most value-laden decision imaginable.
MS. CAREN ROBINSON, representing the Alaska Women's Lobby, spoke
about what she feared might happen if this legislation went into
effect. She reflected on the situation in which Roe v. Wade was
decided, when there were many horrible stories of real women dying
from illegal abortions. MS. ROBINSON told a personal story about a
relative of hers who was forced to seek an illegal abortion. She
remembered the dark, Mexican alley that she took this woman to. She
also remembered her cries. This was a year in which 5,000 women
died and countless others seriously injured due to illegal
abortions in the United States alone. CAREN ROBINSON counted her
blessings that her relative was not one of the women who died.
MS. ROBINSON asked the Legislature to let the courts do their job
and to lead the state by supporting programs and policies that
support healthy families. Ms. ROBINSON called on them to "pull off
the shelf" the study, commissioned by SENATOR PEARCE, that showed
three children a day in Alaska have children. She reminded them of
the story of Spring Adams, the young woman who was impregnated and
later killed by her father, when she was forced to seek his
approval for an abortion. MS. ROBINSON stated that Alaska has the
highest rate of domestic violence and child abuse and, as much as
everyone would like for parents to be involved in these decisions,
she fears that women will end up killing themselves or getting
illegal abortions if they feel they have no other options. She said
we must trust our young women will seek counsel and make the best
decisions they can in their circumstances. She concluded by saying
the legislature and the public should all roll up their sleeves and
figure out what they can do to prevent this problem.
Number 373
SENATOR PARNELL asked if she meant to say these things she
described are happening, he pointed out that the Legislature can
only invoke parental consent to restrict abortion "to the extent
allowed by the U.S. Constitution." MS. ROBINSON replied she was
only voicing her fear of what might happen. She added that she
would rather they had all spent the last four hours brainstorming
about ways to encourage young people to make better life choices.
She said she got pregnant right out of high school and is now
fortunate to have a beautiful 26-year-old son, however, she said he
suffered from having a father who did not want him. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
asked what role the father should play in this decision. MS.
ROBINSON would hope that the young man would want to be involved,
but generally they don't want to have anything to do with it. She
said this is the feeling of the young women out there who realize
that in the end, they are the ones who will be ultimately
responsible for bearing the child and raising the child. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR asked why the male shouldn't have the same rights as the
woman in the decision. CAREN ROBINSON replied generally these women
want to have "a happy little family," but that is simply not
reality. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR concluded that he was simply looking at
the logic of giving one side of the equation the unilateral power
to make a decision about the result of a consensual act of two.
CAREN ROBINSON suggested that if the men had played a role in the
decision, most women would be forced to get abortions.
Number 282
MS. KELLI MAHONEY testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. She
testified that poor choices made as a child should not shackle
young women to lifelong consequences. She thinks children are
reasonable and shouldn't have to live with the result of a mistake
for the rest of their life. MS. MAHONEY said judges in the Mat-Su
are human and have their own ideas about what should happen to
children in certain situations. She said the group with her today
are abstinence educators, who believe it is not in the best
interest of children to have children, but believe if it happens,
both the boy and girl must be responsible. MS. MAHONEY restated
concern about children who go to their parents being abused. She
mentioned other parents who back out of their responsibility and
force siblings to raise other siblings. MS. MAHONEY said the
difference between the role of men and women is that women suffer
in childbirth and abortion as men do not, through no fault of their
own.
MS. MAHONEY said it is important to help young women make choices
to further their success in life and forcing them to bear or abort
a child would not be in the girl's self interest. MS. MAHONEY said
a girl's psychological well-being depends on whether she herself
made the decision best for her own life. MS. MAHONEY also suggested
that, at that stage of a girl's life, peer opinions have more
influence than those of parents. MS. MAHONEY said in her
experience, only one or two of the kids in any given classroom have
had a discussion that actually met their needs with their parents
about sex.
MS. MAHONEY concluded that there are too many men making decisions
for poor women and many young women who become pregnant are likely
to be kicked out of the house by bad parents.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the bypass procedure would be better if
the young women had to go before her organization rather than a
judge. MS. MAHONEY said it would be preferable for the bill to ask
that the young women "consult someone" or "attempt to contact her
parents." She emphasized that some of the circumstances in which
these young women find themselves are absolutely terrible.
Number 80
MS. LANA HENLEY reiterated the idea that with good counseling, kids
can make these decisions. She also hopes that young women would
consult someone in making this major choice, but stressed that no
one has the right to play God and the teen women themselves are the
ones who will have to reconcile their decision with their own God
and live with it. She recounted her own dysfunctional, sexually
abusive family. She had to have two abortions due to sexual abuse,
but said had she needed her mother's consent for these, she would
have lost her entire family. She said it is not the legislature's
place to interfere with these decisions.
MS. ANDREA ELLISON, a 16-year-old-mother from an abusive, broken
home, was thrown out of her home when her mother found out she was
pregnant. She said parents who throw their children out of the
house are not punished. She believes children would rather hide
their pregnancies than face telling their abusive families.
TAPE 98-21, Side A
Number 001
MS. KATIE HURLEY testified via teleconference in opposition to the
bill. She said this bill puts certain children at risk and does
nothing to improve communication between parents and children. MS.
HURLEY emphasized the careful work of the delegates who wrote the
Alaska Constitution and wanted it to be a broad, basic document as
opposed to legislative detail. MS. HURLEY stated that this bill is
legislative detail.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the legislature should impose further
responsibilities on the putative fathers. MS. HURLEY replied that
if the young women don't want the fathers around, it is their
choice. She thinks generally the young men won't want to stick
around, and might not make the best fathers anyway. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
asked again about holding them accountable. MS. HURLEY said they
have some responsibility now, but money is not what makes a good
parent; it takes love, and love can't be legislated, nor can
communication. MS. HURLEY suggested that we all must set a good
example for others.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR closed by saying he appreciated the candor and
logic of all those who testified. He said it had been a fascinating
discussion and he noted that he had allowed every witness from
every site statewide to testify without any time constraint.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|