Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/21/2016 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB89 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 21, 2016
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Liz Vazquez, Vice Chair
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative David Talerico
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jim Colver
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 89(RLS) AM(EFD ADD)
"An Act relating to a parent's right to direct the education of
a child; prohibiting a school district from contracting with an
abortion services provider; prohibiting a school district from
allowing an abortion services provider to furnish course
materials or provide instruction concerning sexuality or
sexually transmitted diseases; relating to physical examinations
for teachers; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 156
"An Act relating to compliance with federal education laws;
relating to public school accountability; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 89
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOLS: PARENT RTS; ABORT. PROVDRS LIMITS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DUNLEAVY
03/25/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/15 (S) EDC, STA
03/31/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/15 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/02/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/02/15 (S) Heard & Held
04/02/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
04/07/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/15 (S) Heard & Held
04/07/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
04/09/15 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/09/15 (S) <Pending Referral>
04/09/15 (S) EDC AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/09/15 (S) Moved CSSB 89(EDC) Out of Committee
04/09/15 (S) MINUTE (EDC)
04/10/15 (S) EDC RPT CS 3DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
04/10/15 (S) DP: DUNLEAVY, GIESSEL, HUGGINS
04/10/15 (S) DNP: GARDNER
04/14/15 (S) STA AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/14/15 (S) Heard & Held
04/14/15 (S) MINUTE (STA)
04/15/15 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP 1AM NEW TITLE
04/15/15 (S) DP: STOLTZE, COGHILL, HUGGINS
04/15/15 (S) AM: WIELECHOWSKI
04/15/15 (S) STA AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/15/15 (S) Moved CSSB 89(STA) Out of Committee
04/15/15 (S) MINUTE (STA)
02/24/16 (S) RLS RPT CS 4DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
02/24/16 (S) DP: HUGGINS, COGHILL, KELLY, MEYER
02/24/16 (S) DNP: GARDNER
02/24/16 (S) BILL REPRINTED 2/24/16
02/24/16 (S) RLS AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/24/16 (S) Moved CSSB 89(RLS) Out of Committee
02/24/16 (S) MINUTE (RLS)
02/29/16 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/29/16 (S) VERSION: CSSB 89(RLS) AM(EFD ADD)
03/04/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/16 (H) EDC, JUD
03/14/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/14/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/16 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
03/16/16 (H) JUD REFERRAL REMOVED
03/16/16 (H) HSS REFERRAL ADDED AFTER EDC
03/21/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR MIKE DUNLEAVY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 89, as prime sponsor.
ELISSA GRAVES, Legal Counsel
Alliance Defending Freedom
Scottsdale, Arizona
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on SB 89.
MICHELLE HARTLINE
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 89.
BILL HARTLINE
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 89.
ED GRAY
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 89.
JULIE STROEMER
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 89.
KEITH KURBER II
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 89.
ROBERT HOCKEMA
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 89.
RICARDA LEBMAN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 89.
MOIRA PYHALA, President
Generation Action
Students for Reproductive Justice
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 89.
JOY LYON
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 89.
CHRISTINE NIEME, Member
League of Women Voters
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 89.
MARCI HAWKINS
Sutton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 89.
BARBARA HANEY
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 89.
ANDY HOLLEMAN, Representative
Anchorage Education Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 89.
PAMELA SAMASH, President
Right to Life Interior Alaska
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 89.
DAVID NEES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 89.
DAVID BOYLE
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 89.
KATHIE JOHNSON
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 89.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:19 AM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representatives Keller, Seaton,
Vazquez, Drummond, and Talerico were present at the call to
order. Representative Spohnholz arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
SB 89-SCHOOLS: PARENT RTS; ABORT. PROVDRS LIMITS
[Contains discussion of SB 191]
[Contains discussion of HB 44]
8:02:50 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the only order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 89(RLS) am(efd add), "An Act relating to
a parent's right to direct the education of a child; prohibiting
a school district from contracting with an abortion services
provider; prohibiting a school district from allowing an
abortion services provider to furnish course materials or
provide instruction concerning sexuality or sexually transmitted
diseases; relating to physical examinations for teachers; and
providing for an effective date."
8:03:14 AM
SENATOR MIKE DUNLEAVY, Alaska State Legislature, named the three
main components of SB 89, which are: parental rights, banning
abortion providers from the schools, and physical examinations
for teachers. The physical examination facet was included by
request of school districts as a means to save resources, and
was an aspect of the original HB 44, but not retained in the
final version.
8:04:47 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY cited his background in the education field,
from teacher to administrator, and said a growing concern exists
regarding government infringement on parental rights by both
federal and state entities. Furthermore, a number of things are
occurring today in schools that many people disagree with, and
evidence indicates that students are losing interest in
attending neighborhood schools. Home schools are an area of
major growth in Alaska, where two methods can be applied. One
is devoid of any public program, and the other adopts part of a
public program. However, family values are coming to the fore
which make it difficult for many parents to remain satisfied
with neighborhood school programs. He said he attended public
schools throughout his educational career, and his children are
enrolled in public school, but concerns exist for what is being
provided in that forum, including what has been implemented
under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and its
reauthorization as Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The
concept of having abortion providers, in the schools, teaching
children about sexuality, is also an issue, which is the basis
for the bill.
8:07:03 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said SB 89 does not prevent schools from
teaching sex education; however, health class is the appropriate
forum for such curricula. The bill does prohibit abortion
providers from being contracted to present sex education.
Additionally, SB 89 does not impinge on HB 44, Erin's Law and
Bree's Law [Alaska Safe Children's Act], which will not require
an opt-in approval, but will retain the parent's right to opt-
out. He acknowledged that an argument has been brought that SB
89 is an attack on local control, and pointed out that over 227
pages of legislative generated statute exist, which establishes
the parameters for what schools may teach, and how it can be
presented. It is the job of the legislature to make general law
that guides the schools. Recalling HB 44, he said it compelled
law to implement training in dating violence and sexual
awareness for children in all districts. Another example, of a
compelling law was the ability to allow a parent to opt their
student out of a classroom test. Thus, it is part of the
legislature's job to periodically review issues that may require
the establishment of compelling law.
8:10:03 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY acknowledged arguments that without the
assistance of abortion providers, sex education classes could
not be afforded; however, the cost has yet to be determined. He
said:
We don't know what it costs. We don't know what's
being taught. We don't know if the teacher is in the
room when it's being taught.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said every class has a teacher, who should be
present at all times, and additional teachers would not need to
be contracted for the specific course, thus, the majority of the
cost is already covered. Criticism has also been fielded that
the bill is unconstitutional, he reported, and opined that only
a court can make that determination. Legislative Legal has
expressed concern for the constitutionality; however, two
states, Louisiana and Missouri, have similar laws which have not
been challenged as unconstitutional.
8:13:07 AM
ELISSA GRAVES, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom,
addressed a number of questions, paraphrasing from a prepared
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, a
non-profit legal organization. I am writing to advise
you of the constitutionality of SB 89, which prohibits
abortion services providers, or an employee or
volunteer of an abortion services provider, to provide
instruction or materials relating to human sexuality
or sexually transmitted diseases.
1. SB 89 does not infringe on First Amendment rights.
SB 89 does not restrict the rights of teachers to
speak outside of their employment, contrary to the
allegations of opponents to this bill such as the
American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska. It does not
forbid teachers from volunteering or working with
abortion services providers in their private capacity
as citizens. Instead, SB 89 prohibits any abortions
services provider, its employees or volunteers, from
delivering instruction or materials relating to human
sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases in the
capacity as a representative of any abortion services
provider. This means that teachers and other school
personnel would, for example, be permitted to
volunteer with an abortion provider to stuff
envelopes, answer phone calls, educate women about
their health, collect signatures for petitions, and
speak at a rally supportive of abortion rights in
their capacity as a citizen, while also being
permitted to deliver instruction in sexual education
in their capacity as a teacher ...
[Due to technical difficulties the remainder of this testimony
was not heard. The complete text is available in the committee
packet, as an undated letter with the letterhead, "Alliance
Defending FREEDOM For Faith. For Freedom.", addressed to the
House Education Committee, Alaska State Senate, State Capitol,
Juneau, AK 99801, three pages.]
8:14:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether, during his career, the
sponsor has to opt a child out of a class, and if there was any
trouble in implementing the provision.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said he opted his youngest child out of testing
and there was no express trouble but some confusion and
questions resulted. As a parent, with an understanding of the
process and school law, he said he may have been more proactive
than other parents.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether he has had to opt a child
out of lessons.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY responded, "No."
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether as an administrator he has
found the opt-in and opt-out procedures burdensome.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said he has not had the experience to report.
8:17:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to the Sec. 4, page 3, line 15,
which read as follows:
(a) A school district may require physical
examinations of teachers as a condition of employment.
A school district may not pay the cost of physical
examinations for teachers. This section does not
affect the coverage of any health insurance benefits
that a school district provides to teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the intent is to allow a
district to require the physical examination of its teachers,
but prohibits the district from paying for the exam. He noted a
possible disparity in the use of the terms may require and may
not pay, particularly if health insurance benefits are provided,
and asked how these terms work together.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said the section was implemented at the request
of educators, and using the term "may" versus "shall" might
require consideration. However the intent is for the districts
to be relieved of the examination costs.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the physical examination,
includes fingerprinting and background checks.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY stated his understanding that it would not, and
added that fingerprinting is handled through the certification
renewal process via the office of public safety.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern for teachers in the Bush
whose travel costs to comply with the requirement are not
covered. It may represent a burden to many rural teachers,
which could result in a loss of teachers.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY opined that recruitment and retention issues go
beyond physical examination requirements.
8:21:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to Sec. 5, to ask whether a
volunteer or an employee of an organization that is an abortion
provider, may instruct a sex education course, if they are not
acting specifically as an employee at the time.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY paraphrased from Sec. 5, page 3, lines 22-25,
which read as follows:
(c) A school district may not permit an abortion
services provider or an employee or volunteer of an
abortion services provider to offer, sponsor, furnish
course materials, or provide instruction relating to
human sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said the intent is to bar anyone under the
guise of an abortion provider from teaching sex education in
schools.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that an abortion service
provider volunteer can offer instruction and materials in the
classroom, as long as they are not employed by the organization
for that service.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY stated, "No." An abortion services provider,
and anyone employed by or who acts as an integral part of the
organization may not be allowed to deliver sex education in
schools. To a follow-up question, he said anyone associated
with an abortion provider, would be disallowed from teaching sex
education in schools.
CHAIR KELLER interjected that course materials, sourced from an
abortion provider, are also disallowed.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said, "Correct."
8:26:57 AM
MS. GRAVES said the section does not cover activities outside of
public employment. The Sec. 5 language only applies if the
volunteer or employee is acting as a representative of an
abortion provider organization to deliver sex education in the
school.
8:27:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to page 2, lines [23]-24, and
paraphrased the language, which read as follows:
The policies adopted under (a)(3) of this section must
require written permission from the child's parent
before each separate activity, class, or program is
provided to a child that includes content involving
human reproduction or sexual matters.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stressed the language requiring written
permission before each separate activity, and directed attention
to earlier language that appears to be more broad; page 2, lines
4-[7], which read as follows:
(3) providing for parent notification not less than
two weeks before any activity, class, or program that
includes content involving human reproduction or
sexual matters is provided to a child and requiring
written permission from the child's parent before the
child may participate in the activity, class, or
program;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the requirement is intended as a
broad, inclusive approval, suggested by line 4, or an activity
specific requirement, as indicated on line 24.
8:30:02 AM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY the intent is allow parents to have a full
understanding of what to expect and have an opportunity for
review. Often, he espoused, a visitor may be engaged to provide
a presentation without prior planning.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON theorized that the subjects would be
provided to the parents, for review, at the beginning of the
school year.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said that class activity plans change
throughout a school year, and this language is to eliminate the
element of surprise by requiring a two week advance notice.
Parents need the opportunity to say no, he said, and provided a
scenario to illustrate his point: Perhaps a biology curriculum
is well known, but two days prior to a particular lesson, a
[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)]
representative is in town, and the teacher invites them to do a
presentation. A parent may object to the PETA approach, and
should have the opportunity to deny their child access via the
opt-out or, as in what is being proposed, the opt-in process.
Parents have cited the lack of control over these type of
spontaneous situations, as one reason they are not sending their
children to public schools, he reported.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that written permission must be
given two weeks prior to each activity.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY concurred, and added it applies to any changes
from lesson plans provided at the beginning of the school year.
8:35:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ returned page 3, lines 15-19, regarding
the teacher's physical examinations, and asked whether these
exams are not already occurring.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY reported that the section was adopted from the
original HB 44, as a section that was removed in final passage.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked to know what the current practices
are, regarding physical examination requirements for teachers.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said physical exams are required for any one
new entering a district, and periodically throughout the
teaching years. Basic physical exams, including tuberculosis
screening, have been traditionally paid for by the districts.
As proposed, Sec. 5 removes the cost burden from the districts.
To a follow-up question he said a district may deem a physical
exam unnecessary, such as a teacher transferring between
districts who was recently examined.
8:39:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND directed attention to the committee
packet handout titled, "Sectional Summary for CSSB 89 (Version
F.A.)," and paraphrased the Section 4 language, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 4. Prohibits school districts from paying the
costs of physical examinations for teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND pointed out that the bill language,
which aligns with the above statement, utilizes the term "may,"
and opined that it seems permissive.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY offered to provide further information.
8:41:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ maintained her concern for the lack of a
required physical exam, and noted the issues it may cause in the
Bush, where medical assistance may not be available. Contagious
diseases are certainly a current problem, she stressed.
8:42:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 3, lines 5-10,
which read as follows:
(5) "human reproduction or sexual matters" does not
include curricula or materials for
(A) sexual abuse and sexual assault awareness and
prevention training required under AS 14.30.355; or
(B) dating violence and abuse awareness and
prevention training required under AS 14.30.356.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out the terms "sexual matters" and
"sexual abuse," and asked what salient criteria distinguishes
these two terms in the presentation of materials.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said it's defined under AS 14.30.355, and is
specific to the Erin's Law curriculum that is being developed.
Additionally, AS 14.30.356 is also excluded from paragraph (5)
to satisfy specific law.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined on the difficulty of segregating
the topics these terms encompass, and the practicality of
presenting them in a classroom in isolation of each other.
Confusion and conflict may arise when parents are presented with
the terms as they decide whether to have their student opt-in to
sexual matters or sexual abuse programs. He suggested that the
terms are subjective, and pondered how this scenario might play
out for parents.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said Erin's Law deals with dating violence and
sexual abuse awareness, and not sex education and reproduction.
What is referred to as Erin's and Bree's Law are not subject to
the opt-in choice, as all students will receive those programs
unless opted-out.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that the conflict for parents of
sexual abuse may be more of an issue and problematic than the
topic of how reproduction occurs.
8:47:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled public testimony which reported
that 80 percent of the parents don't have sexual conversations
with their children. Home schooling allows parents to have the
ultimate involvement in a child's life. However, 80 percent of
public school attendees apparently don't have that level of
parental involvement. Thus, a large populace relies on
information provided through school programs. Teachers are not
necessarily comfortable presenting sexual education topics, and
have, in turn, come to rely on outside organizations to provide
the required, sensitive, information, and materials. If that
resource is removed, he asked, will the teachers be required to
develop materials and a supporting curriculum.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY responded that perhaps there is a larger
problem that is not being addressed, if parental communication
is lacking. The bill does not prevent sexual education in the
schools, he said, and pointed out that certified teachers may
review and propose curriculum, but the program may not be
brought into the schools by abortion providers.
8:51:08 AM
CHAIR KELLER opened public testimony.
8:51:38 AM
MICHELLE HARTLINE stated support for SB 89, and said as a parent
she considers the public schools to be a tool for teaching, not
the primary instructor for her children. She opined that
abortion providers may bring a bias to the classroom.
8:54:48 AM
BILL HARTLINE stated support for SB 89, echoing the sentiments
of the previous witness to underscore the shared points of
concern.
8:56:17 AM
ED GRAY stated support for SB 89, and said he protested the
entry of Planned Parenthood in the public schools. The agency
no longer exists in the Sitka area, and the schools have adopted
other means for bringing sexual education to the classroom.
8:58:52 AM
JULIE STROEMER stated support for SB 89, and recalled how
upsetting it was to have Planned Parenthood enter the public
classroom. As a tax payer, she said this is not appropriate,
however, she noted, her daughter has benefited from the opt-out
provision.
9:01:15 AM
KEITH KURBER II, stated support for SB 89, underscoring the
importance for the legislation, citing it as a means to prevent
the erosion of parental rights concerning issues of profound
importance.
9:02:20 AM
ROBERT HOCKEMA, stated opposition to SB 89, and said the level
of unplanned pregnancies are on a decline at the national level.
The more students who participate in sexual education classes,
the better the situation will be served to deter unwanted
pregnancies.
9:04:44 AM
RICARDA LEBMAN, stated opposition to SB 89, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
I am writing to ask you not to support SB 89. The
"opt-in" for sexual education was practiced in Texas
when I went to school from 1961 to 1973. Sexual
education was offered only once (in sixth grade) in
all my primary grade years. The opt-in permission
slip was given by teachers just one day prior to the
program being presented (although the intent was to
provide more notice, the reality was not). There were
about 15 of us who missed the program that next day
because of the lack of time and due to the opt-in,
instead of the opt-out, option which was new to the
parents. Both my parents were dismayed that factual
information approved and reviewed by professional
educators, had to be "opted-in". This would be on the
same scale as requiring opting-in for evolution
education. Another science based, proven theory that
endures educational conflict from biblical creation
belief and political pandering.
As I listened to the concerns expressed by others on
the teleconference, I was surprised at the number of
people who spoke about fear. Fear that their children
might learn from someone amoral and/or that hearing
factual information from an "abortion provider" was
somehow different than hearing the same material from
a certified teacher. Where are the instances of such
abuse or misinformation that support these claims?
Aren't these the same arguments presented to attempt
removal of gay teachers from their jobs? Who's next?
"Abortion Provider" is a term referring to a medical
professional that performs just one legal medical
procedure for women. This term should not be used in
a Senate Bill to overshadow medical doctors, clinics
and health providers (such as Planned Parenthood) whom
perform mostly other medical services. I find this
bill to be incendiary, intolerant and judgmental and
not reflecting Alaskan Values.
9:06:24 AM
MOIRA PYHALA, stated opposition to SB 89, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Without a sexual education program, students are at
risk because they're in the dark about their own
bodies. Without proper sex [education], students will
revert to mislead information from both the internet,
aka porn, along with their peers. Misinformation
about sex leads to unhealthy relationships and
situations. This is one of the leading causes of
violence against women in our country today. These
are also factors that Planned Parenthood is working
every day to eliminate in our society. It's a known
fact that states without a sex [education] program
implemented in their schools see higher levels of
[sexually transmitted infections] and unintended
pregnancies every year. If you truly wanted to help
our state, it would be in everyone's best interest to
focus on the state's fiscal issue and not dwell on
unnecessary bills, such as SB 89. As a proud
supporter of Planned Parenthood, president of
Generation Action, Student's for Reproductive Justice
at [University of Alaska, Anchorage], and a student
myself, I ask that the committee does not support this
bill and works on more important issues, such as
regaining funding for our university. Please give
students the tools they need to flourish, not
endangering themselves and others. [SB 89] not
supporting school districts, it's limiting them.
9:08:16 AM
JOY LYON stated opposition to SB 89, and recalled the brief
statement her mother made to her as a child, along with a
brochure that was handed out. The curriculum was minimal, at
that time; however, she has since experienced a presentation
that was more appropriate. Half of the pregnancies in Alaska
are unintended, which indicates a lack of understanding among
young people. The cost is borne through Medicaid, at a cost of
$44 million.
9:11:49 AM
CHRISTINE NIEME, Member, League of Women Voters, stated official
opposition to SB 89, and, on behalf of the League of Women
Voters, paraphrased from a statement, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
The League of Women Voters of Alaska (LWVAK) strongly
opposes both SB 89 and SB 191 based on the long-
established (1983) League of Women Voters of the
United States (LWVUS) Position on Reproductive Choices
which state the follows: The LWVUS "believes that
public policy in a pluralistic society must affirm the
constitutional right to privacy of the individual to
make reproductive choices."
In addition, the LWVUS Position on Health Care
supports "a basic level of care that includes ...
prenatal and reproductive health." This basic care
for reproductive health can have far-reaching positive
effects including healthier babies and stronger and
more financially stable families. Prenatal and
reproductive car can also save public monies. The
Guttmacher Institute reports that in 2010, Title-X
supported reproductive health services resulted in a
net savings in Alaska of $17.9 million due to the
prevention of unintended or closely spaced
pregnancies, low birth weight babies, [sexually
transmitted diseases (STD)] transmission, and cervical
cancer cases.
This type of success is possible only when sexually
active men and women have access to sound medical
information and medical care. To ban the use of a
Title-X funded reproductive health facility from
teaching young men and women simply because in some
cases they also provide, with private funding,
abortion services is unwise. Such facilities have as
one of their main purposes the prevention of
unintended pregnancies.
And who might know better the difficulty in having to
end a pregnancy than those who work with families
facing that most difficult of decisions. It is a
decision best left to a woman and her health care
provider; it is a very private and personal and
painful decision.
Those who oppose the teaching provided by Title-X
funded reproductive health workers should experience
the classes taught by them. Those parents who are
uncomfortable with a science-based approach to sex
education can always opt-out. But to most parents,
education is not an activity to be avoided, especially
when it comes to the important area of reproductive
health.
LWVAK strongly urges the members of the Alaska
Legislature to reject both of these bills.
9:15:24 AM
MARCI HAWKINS, Sutton, Alaska, stated opposition to SB 89, and
said not everyone associated with Planned Parenthood are
abortion providers. She said this is a delineation that needs
to be clarified. The current programs are free, or at a minimal
cost, and the costs for replacing the curriculum have not been
identified. The research alone, to ensure that any individuals
presenting sexual information in schools are not affiliated with
abortion providers, will require funding; nurses, doctors, and
hospital employees. She encouraged the members to attend one of
the classes, at a local school, to gain an understanding of what
is actually being taught. As a mother of five, she reported
having homeschooled two of her children due to issue that
included, overcrowding, bullying, and rampant drug abuse, but
not because of the sex education programs. The focus is on
preventing abortions, and date related violence, and she opined
that "sexual matters" is an inclusive term.
9:20:37 AM
BARBARA HANEY, stated support for SB 89, focusing on the opt-in
aspect of the bill. She noted that the reported rise in
Alaska's [sexually transmitted disease 9STD)] levels and other
sexual issues, does not bode well for the effectiveness of what
is currently being presented through Planned Parenthood.
9:24:12 AM
ANDY HOLLEMAN, Representative, Anchorage Education Association,
stated opposition to SB 89, noting that many school employees
work during the summer in medical offices, which may prohibit
their ability to lead topical discussions in the classroom.
Further, he paraphrased from a prepared document, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I just want to strongly urge the committee to be sure
and actually review the materials that are used in
classes at all the age levels so that they know for
certain what they are reacting to in considering this
legislation.
Classes are not simply turned over to Planned
Parenthood to "sell their ideas" to a captive
audience. They are invited in for a particular reason
because of their expertise on reproductive health and
human sexuality. One caller suggested that home
contact information for students was given to Planned
Parenthood. Another asked if schools might allow the
marijuana or alcoholic beverage industry in to promote
their products.
Home contact information is absolutely off limits for
any outside group. To my knowledge, no school does
this, and certainly, they should not, now, without SB
89 becoming law.
I think we all know that we do not promote use of
intoxicating products in schools. But it's also the
case that we might allow the CEO of a beverage company
to talk about accounting or shipping obstacles in
Alaska. We wouldn't treat them like someone that
should be shunned but we absolutely would not let them
promote their products to students. We promote the
sport of marksmanship and we instruct in gun safety
without "promoting" students to carry weapons or
engage in inappropriate or illegal activities, though
some parents do object to those activities.
If there are schools legitimately violating parent
rights, I hope you'll facilitate them being able to
challenge their local school boards and schools on an
individual basis. Across this state you have
thousands of employees working hard to have students
know what they need to know while respecting
individual choices and values that vary widely.
SB 89 doesn't help us do that. It does create spike
strips in conducting certain classes that educators
will avoid by a large margin.
9:27:21 AM
PAMELA SAMASH, President, Right to Life Interior Alaska, stated
support for SB 89, paraphrased from a prepared statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Thank goodness for this wonderful bill, I support it
because it puts parental rights first.
As a mother of 4 daughters, this bill is near and dear
to me because 2 of my girls are in the public school
system.
I do not want to see Planned Parenthood teaching sex
Ed because first, I feel they are an organization that
directly benefits from promoting sex. It doesn't make
any sense to say the state wants to slow down the
spread of STD's and then to turn around and hire sex
promoters in the classrooms.
Another issue I have is the parental opt out program.
As an experienced public school mom, I would highly
recommend that if this bill fails, the education
department should focus on the communication style
they use to contact parents. Presently the system is
to send notes home with the kids and then to have the
parents sign and then the kids return them. This
process is not good enough because this issue is way
to important and even dangerous in my opinion and kids
are known for never even getting the notes home to
their parents because they either forget or they don't
want to be opted out and look weird to their friends.
School social pressure is real and can be intense and
trusting kids to handle this note responsibility is
irresponsible in my experience. Instead, I would
suggest to the education dept. that they implement a
direct contact system from the school to the parents
along with all the curriculum including the
pornographic material given to the parents so they are
fully aware and can make an informed choice of whether
or not to have their kids participate in this sexual
desensitization class. This is the only way to be sure
that the parents really do know of what's going on.
9:31:15 AM
DAVID NEES, stated support for SB 89, citing the origination of
Planned Parenthood and how it developed, from Irish roots, to
what it represents today. He said the bottom line is who is in
charge of our children, the government or parents.
9:33:39 AM
DAVID BOYLE, stated support for SB 89, and opined that the
question is who has more rights over their child, the parents or
government. He provided a scenario using marijuana as an
example and how it might be handled given similar circumstances.
Also, a situation arose in the Anchorage School District
regarding transportation, which, using the permission slip
method, did not have good success. The government is not a
surrogate parent, he maintained, and urged passage of the bill.
9:36:48 AM
KATHIE JOHNSON, stated support for SB 89, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read:
As a parent and grandparent I have seen the
devastating effects of sexual activity without
boundaries.
Sexuality is a great gift that comes with
responsibility not just in preventing pregnancy and
STD's. We do our kids a disservice in teaching them
that self-control is either not possible or not
necessary. Are all teens going to exercise self-
control? Of course not. But many more might if they
were taught of the emotional, spiritual, and physical
consequences.
Planned Parenthood will teach them about "safe" sex,
how to use a condom, and give them birth control
pills. If by chance there is a pregnancy they will
offer an abortion. But the consequences are still
there affecting individuals, families, and future
generations. Planned Parenthood doesn't want to come
into our schools because it is a benevolent charity
who loves our children. It is a business with an
ideology. A big business. Any person is free to walk
into their office if they agree with the ideology and
want their services. Not satisfied with that they
want to influence all our kids. Don't let them into
the schools.
9:38:23 AM
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
9:38:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the bill, page 1,
lines [12] - 13 [and page 2, line 1], which read as follows:
(1) recognizing the authority of a parent and allowing
a parent to object to and withdraw the child from a
standards-based assessment or test required by the
state;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated his previous request and asked
to have clarification of the required test, and how statutory
compliance will be satisfied.
CHAIR KELLER noted he will be sure the sponsor receives that
question.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether Version I was the working
document.
CHAIR KELLER responded that the committee adopted Version Y as
the working document.
CHAIR KELLER announced SB 89 as held over.
9:42:00 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:42 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB156 Sectional.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2016 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| SB89 Letters of Support.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |
| SB89 Testimony E. Graves.pdf |
HEDC 3/21/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |
| SB89 Opposition.PDF |
HEDC 3/21/2016 8:00:00 AM |
SB 89 |