Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/25/2009 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB35 | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 25, 2009
1:38 p.m.
1:38:41 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:38 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Vice-Chair
Representative Allan Austerman
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Les Gara
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
None.
ALSO PRESENT
Representative John Coghill; Representative Nancy
Dahlstrom; Tim Clark, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgemon;
Greg Winegar, Director, Alaska Division of Investments,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development;
Ben Mulligan, Staff to Representative Stoltze.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
None.
SUMMARY
HB 35 "An Act relating to notice and consent for a
minor's abortion; relating to penalties for
performing an abortion; relating to a judicial
bypass procedure for an abortion; relating to
coercion of a minor to have an abortion; relating
to reporting of abortions performed on minors;
amending Rule 220, Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure, and Rule 20, Alaska Probate Rules,
relating to judicial bypass for an abortion; and
providing for an effective date."
HB35 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 20 "An Act relating to commercial fishing loans for
energy efficiency upgrades."
HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
1:39:14 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 35
"An Act relating to notice and consent for a minor's
abortion; relating to penalties for performing an
abortion; relating to a judicial bypass procedure for
an abortion; relating to coercion of a minor to have an
abortion; relating to reporting of abortions performed
on minors; amending Rule 220, Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure, and Rule 20, Alaska Probate Rules, relating
to judicial bypass for an abortion; and providing for
an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, presented House Bill 35. A
similar bill has been before the House in the past but has
fallen short of being made into law. The Parental Consent
Act of 1997 established parental rights in the area of
minor's seeking abortions. In 2007 the Alaska Supreme Court
overturned the Parental Consent Act on the basis that it was
unconstitutional. Representative Coghill stated that HB 35
has been crafted with a sincere effort to balance the rights
and responsibilities of all involved parties: The Alaska
Supreme Court, the state, parents, and minors.
1:42:01 PM
Representative Coghill pointed out that there are state
statutes that mandate parental consent for minors to undergo
medical procedures, obtain marriage and drivers licenses,
and receive tattoos and piercings.
1:44:05 PM
Representative Coghill read from a prepared statement, "HB35
Parental Consent for Abortions" (Copy on File):
· This bill is in the Alaska Statutes dealing with
abortions.
· This bill answers an Alaska Supreme Court decision in
statute by modifying the standards, process, and
parental part of a minor girl with regard to abortions.
Representative Coghill argued that the U.S. Supreme Court
decision puts a barrier between parents and children because
it does not statutorily give the parent the right to know if
the child has had an abortion. He felt loving, caring
parents should be allowed by law to guide the minor in
decision making of this magnitude. The bill would give
parents the right not only to know about the abortion, but
would ultimately extend to the parent the right to make the
choice for the immature minor.
Representative Coghill continued on Slide 1, "The Standard":
· The Standards are a balance of parental rights and
responsibilities, the minor's right of protection under
the privacy clause, and the states compelling interest
in protecting the family, the minor, and each right
enjoyed by both.
· The way the court viewed the Standard was that it
needed to be the least restrictive of the minor's right
to privacy.
· Therefore this bill outlines the flow of consent
requirements:
o Minor must obtain consent of parents and 48 hour
notice for fit and loving parents.
o If married - no parental consent required.
o If legally emancipated - no parental consent
required.
o If entered in the armed forces - no parental
consent required.
o If self-subsisting and employed - no parental
consent required.
o If petition court showing mature decision - no
parental consent required.
o If court inactive - no parental consent required.
o If sexual of physical abuse upon signature and
witness - no parental or court consent required.
1:45:55 PM
Representative Coghill felt that cases defined by the
standards are cases where minors had demonstrated a
sufficient maturity level and could be trusted to make the
decision whether or not to have an abortion.
1:47:38 PM
Representative Coghill expounded on the reasoning behind the
U.S. Supreme Court decision of 2007. The court sought to
find a balance between the minor's right to privacy and the
parent's right to be involved in decision making related to
abortion. After ten years of deliberation the Alaska Supreme
Court stated that requiring parental consent for a minor
female to obtain an abortion was constitutionally suspect.
The court was in favor of parental notification, but not
consent. Representative Coghill thought that parents should
have more than a notification provision under state law.
1:49:46 PM
Representative Coghill discussed judicial bypass. Under HB
35 victims of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or emotional
abuse can go directly to a doctor for an abortion with a
signed and notarized statement from the minor and one of the
following:
· Adult sibling
· Law enforcement officer
· Department of Health and Social Services representative
such as a case worker for Office of Children's Services
(OCS) or Juvenile Justice.
· A grandparent
· A stepparent
Representative Coghill reasoned that the pregnant minor is
in need of mature guidance, outside of herself, to make the
choice of whether or not to have an abortion. He added that
if the parents of the minor in question are abusive or have
strong beliefs against abortion, the additional bypass
provides the minor female a way to demonstrate her maturity
and need for an abortion without parental consent.
1:50:44 PM
Representative Coghill discussed coercion. By law a minor
cannot be coerced to have an abortion. A minor child could
obtain emancipation if a parent were forcing her to have an
abortion through coercion. For example, a parent refusing to
provide food, shelter, or financial support. He believed
that in our current society young women are preyed upon. He
asserted that as the law currently stands, there is no
protection from coercion for the minor child. The bill would
provide a mandatory provision for doctors to report abuse
immediately.
1:52:47 PM
Representative Coghill pondered on the Supreme Court case of
Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979), (Copy on File),
which established the court bypass provisions. The
Massachusetts parental consent law was found
unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court because:
· It allowed judicial authorization for an abortion to be
withheld from a minor who is mature and competent
enough to make the decision independently. (House Bill
35 complies and allows exemption for this minor.)
· It required parental notification in all cases (parents
were required to be notified if their daughter
initiated proceedings in superior court) without
allowing the minor to seek an independent judicial
assessment of her competence to decide the abortion
issue. (House Bill 35 allows for judicial bypass
without notification of parents.)
Representative Coghill informed the committee that
provisions have been entered into the bill in order to
provide the minor accessibility to the court and protection
from coercion by perpetrators.
1:54:01 PM
Representative Coghill discussed Section 1 of HB 35, (Copy
on File). The section elucidates the conditions under Alaska
Statute (AS) 18.16.010(a), in which an abortion can be
performed in the state. He continued to Section 2, AS
18.16.010(g), which elaborates on the protection of the
physician or surgeon performing the abortion when using good
faith clinical judgment.
1:55:39 PM
Representative Coghill continued to Section 3, AS 18.16.020,
which provides the language pertaining to notice and consent
required before a minor's abortion. He stressed the
importance of mature guidance for minors in navigating the
court system.
1:57:24 PM
Representative Coghill felt that some people favor abortion.
He specifically cited Planned Parenthood. He mentioned that
there are people ready to help the minor on both sides of
the issue. He expressed concern for minors that may be
trapped in their hometowns without any authoritive help.
1:59:25 PM
Representative Coghill continued to Section 5, line 22. This
section covers the possibility of parental interests
existing outside of the child's best interest. Section 8
outlines protections in place for the minor should the court
decide that the abortion be performed without parental
consent. Section 9 deals with coercion. He felt this gave
the minor some power in defending herself should the
parent/child relationship be abusive.
2:01:36 PM
Representative Coghill stated that the bill is designed to
bring minors and parents together in making the decision on
abortion, provide an avenue for the minor to demonstrate
maturity or need for an abortion, and give the most benefit
to the minor in the least restrictive way. He reiterated his
personal fear that without the law, minors would be
manipulated by abusers.
2:03:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM, stated her strong support
for HB 35. She said that her constituents, both "pro-life"
and "pro-choice", are in favor of the bill.
2:04:32 PM
Representative Gara wondered if a representative from OCS
would be available to answer questions regarding the bill.
He pointed out that it cannot be written into law that
parents be "loving and caring." He expressed concern for
minors who did not have "loving and caring" parents and
wondered how the consent provision would work for minors in
foster care or awaiting foster care placement. He was
curious how OCS would implement the law in situations where
the child has been taken out of the parent's custody.
Representative Coghill replied that he would wait for OCS to
give the final answer. Co-Chair Stoltze assured the
committee that a formal request would be made to OCS to
speak to Representative Gara's concerns. Representative Gara
also requested an analysis of the possible fiscal impact to
the state.
2:07:39 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that he would work to have questions
answered by OCS as soon as possible.
Representative Coghill informed the committee that there
were 12 abortions performed on children under 15 in 2008. He
felt that it would not take long to determine how many of
those minors were in state custody at the time the abortion
was performed.
Representative Austerman referred to earlier statistics
provided by Representative Coghill. According to the
statistics there were 13 abortions performed on minors under
15 and 128 abortions performed on 15-17 year olds in 2008.
Representative Crawford identified with Representative
Coghill's passion for the issue. He wondered what would
happen if parents have conflicting views on the issue of
abortion. He also questioned how the bill would address the
"morning after pill," or RU486. Representative Coghill
replied that he would research the issue of the RU486 pill.
He gave that the matter of a split opinion on abortion
between parents was more complicated. He assumed that there
would be a family discussion to determine consensus on the
matter.
2:12:49 PM
Representative Coghill stated that there were three parts to
the question; how close is the family, what is the legal
question, and how is the child's relationship with their
parents. He felt that the issue is a legal issue but it is
also about life choices.
Representative Gara thought that minimizing the overall
number of abortions altogether was a positive goal. He
wondered if health classes could provide young people more
information on navigating the adoption system. He felt such
information could help to limit abortions. Representative
Coghill replied that informed consent would open up a
dialogue between parents and minors to discuss all options
for the minor. Representative Gara maintained that laws
could not be written to make families communicate
productively. He pointed out that there is no law requiring
a child to have parental consent to have sex.
2:17:07 PM
Representative Coghill referenced the statutory age limits
for sex between minors and legal adults.
2:18:05 PM
Representative Austerman spoke in support of the Sponsor.
Representative Gara had issue with some the mechanics of the
bill. He felt that the list of standards for the judge's
ruling was not clear in the language of the bill. He
wondered what standard the judge would base a decision on.
Representative Coghill referred to page 5, line 19 of the
bill.
2:20:13 PM
Representative Coghill recognized that the language could be
subjective. He stated that the bill establishes a timeline
to ensure that the minor is not experiencing hardship while
waiting for a court hearing. The hope is that court action
will be quick under the legislation. He reiterated that as
the law stands there is a void of protection for the minor
and a barrier between the parent and the immature pregnant
person.
2:21:18 PM
Representative Gara argued that the language in the bill
regarding the information needed in the minor's affidavit
before the court is clear, but that there is no provision in
the bill that establishes the standard that the judge is to
base the final decision on.
Representative Coghill replied that the judge would base the
decision on the maturity level of the minor and the minor's
intelligence level. He warned that presently there is no
standard and that immature minors have no protection from
coercion.
2:23:10 PM
Representative Gara pointed out that there must be a law
that the judge applies when making the decision and he did
not believe the bill contained such a standard.
2:23:53 PM
Representative Coghill replied that the standard had been
lowered to "clear and convincing evidence". Representative
Gara reiterated that he had many questions about the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze said that there would be an opportunity for
everyone ask questions and to speak their mind on the bill,
but stressed that time is limited.
2:26:26 PM
Representative Coghill noted that the protection of minor
children is a nationwide issue. He felt if minors cannot
trust their parents, other options need to be available to
them.
Co-Chair Stoltze assented that this is a substantial policy
issue. Representative Coghill understood that there are
court process issues that should be researched further in
order to speak to Representative Gara's concerns.
2:27:44 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze shared that he had reviewed public
testimony from past meetings in preparation for the meeting.
HB 35 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
2:28:54 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to commercial fishing loans for
energy efficiency upgrades."
TIM CLARK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGEMON, discussed
the CS of HB 20, which amends the Commercial Fisheries Loan
Act. He elaborated on the sections with amended language
(Copy on File).
2:31:41 PM
Mr. Clark finished with the Retroactivity Clause in section
3. Section 4 sets an immediate effective date for the bill.
2:32:32 PM
Representative Foster wondered about preferential treatment
for people in rural areas. He voiced the need for loans to
be made available to other Alaskans, such as Alaska Native
artisans, as well as fishermen.
2:33:53 PM
Mr. Clark replied that he believed that artisans may be
eligible for loans under the Rural Development Initiative
and possible small business or economic development loans.
Representative Foster wondered why the loans were not coming
from a bank, as would a car or home loan.
2:34:45 PM
Mr. Clark explained that the Commercial Fishing Loan Act was
established in early 1970, at a time when the industry
needed state assistance. He said the program was a different
way for fishermen, who may not have had a credit history, to
acquire loans. Representative Foster pointed out that there
used to be small loans available for miners. He stressed
that not only fishermen needed loans to operate.
2:36:49 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze said that these loans were available only
to commercial fishermen. Representative Foster maintained
that there are banks available to provide loans for viable
businesses.
2:37:31 PM
Mr. Clark explained that the criteria for the loans are
directly related to the needs of fishermen. The loans that
are approved are directly related to commercial fishing.
2:38:18 PM
Representative Foster wondered if the loans are only
available to Alaskan residents. Mr. Clark replied yes.
GREG WINEGAR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INVESTMENTS, DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, stated
that DCCED supports the bill with amendments. He felt that
the amendments were consistent with the mission of the
Commercial Fishing Loan Act.
Co-Chair Stoltze moved Amendment 1, 26-LS0124\P.1, Kane,
6/26/09 (copy on file):
Page 2, line 1, following "permits;":
Delete "or"
Insert "[OR]"
Page 2, line 4, following "efficiency;":
Insert "or
(iii) for new construction related to a vessel for
the purpose of improving energy efficiency in a loan
amount not greater than $100,000;"
Vice-Chair Thomas OBJECTED.
2:40:11 PM
BEN MULLIGAN, STAFF REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, stated that
the amendment puts a clause in place to cap loans for new
vessel construction at $100,000. He explained that in some
cases replacing an old vessel is more efficient than
investing in repair on the old vessel.
Co-Chair Hawker wondered what would happen to older vessels
if replaced by new vessels. Mr. Mulligan replied that the
vessel owner could sell the vessel outright or for scrap. He
said that it would be up to the owner of the vessel. Co-
Chair Hawker felt that there was a gap in the logic of
replacing an old vessel that could be repaired with an
entirely new vessel.
2:41:04 PM
Representative Foster questioned the practicality of the
amendment.
2:41:57 PM
Mr. Mulligan replied that the amendment left it up to the
individual boat owner to decide the best course of action
when upgrading vessels.
Vice-Chair Thomas explained how the fishing industry works.
He relayed that he personally would not qualify for a state
loan because he could qualify for a bank loan. He stressed
that the loans are meant for fishermen who are struggling
financially. He told of the cost of fuel and the burden it
can place on the fishermen. He explained that boats are
often recycled among fishermen.
2:43:52 PM
Representative Kelly remarked that he read the amendment in
a different way. He hoped that the loans were going to be
issued to upgrade old boats and not to buy new vessels.
2:44:59 PM
Representative Fairclough referred to page 2, line 4 of the
bill. She understood that the amendment does not pertain to
new vessels. Co-Chair Stoltze clarified the intent of the
amendment was to not put energy efficiencies on a deficient
boat. Representative Fairclough maintained that the language
was unclear.
2:45:52 PM
Mr. Winegar understood that the amendment did pertain to new
vessels. He remarked that the purchase of new vessels would
be limited.
Vice-Chair Thomas WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
2:46:56 PM
Representative Kelly maintained that the language in the
amendment was unclear.
2:47:27 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas reiterated his support of the amendment.
2:48:17 PM
Representative Kelly felt that some vessels had been left
out of the bill altogether.
2:49:14 PM
Representative Foster asked about the delinquency rate on
the loans. Mr. Winegar explained that the rate was 7
percent. Representative Foster thought that the rate was
high. Mr. Winegar thought the rate would decline throughout
the year. He pointed out that the fund has performed well
from a financial standpoint. Representative Foster
maintained that the rate of return was disappointing. Mr.
Winegar assured that the overall numbers speak favorably for
the program.
2:50:51 PM
Representative Kelly thought there was still a
misunderstanding of whether or not the bill applies to new
boats. He requested clarification from the Department of
Law (LAW).
Co-Chair Hawker understood that the bill addresses new
vessels. He requested clarification. Mr. Winegar said he
could not answer the question. Co-Chair Hawker thought
clarification was warranted.
2:52:25 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze contended the bill should be held until the
language could be clarified by LAW.
Representative Foster expressed frustration with special
interest groups. He felt that fishermen are given
preferential treatment that is not extended to miners. Co-
Chair Stoltze responded that he understood Representative
Foster's concerns.
2:54:21 PM
Representative Gara reported on constituent comments about
expanded eligibility for the loans. He understood that there
was a class of people that did not qualify for the loans.
2:55:56 PM
Mr. Winegar explained that there are separate sections in
the statute that addressed the issue. Under Section A the
applicant does not have to have been turned down by a bank.
Section B requires that the applicant has tried to qualify
for a bank loan and has been turned down. A lower interest
rate distinguishes the difference.
Representative Gara commented that his constituents wanted
loans to improve energy efficiency.
Mr. Clark explained that the intent of the bill is to
correct inequities, widen eligibility, and to encourage
conversion of vessels to prevent high energy costs.
2:58:53 PM
Representative Kelly reported that he had similar
constituent concerns.
HB 20 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:59 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB35 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| 03 HB35 Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| 04 Bellotti v Baird.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| 05 State v. Planned Parenthood.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| 06 Court Forms re Bypass.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| 11 HB35 Backup.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| Amendment 1 to HB 20.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| Amendment 2 to HB 20.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB 35 Overview by Rep. Coghill.pdf |
HFIN 3/25/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |