Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
03/22/2012 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Tgm, Statewide Suicide Prevention | |
| HB363 | |
| SB82 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 363 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2012
3:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Alan Dick, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Bob Miller
Representative Charisse Millett
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: TGM~ STATEWIDE SUICIDE PREVENTION
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 363
"An Act prohibiting the use of public funds for abortion."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 82(JUD)
"An Act relating to the procedures and jurisdiction of the
Department of Health and Social Services for the care of
children who are in state custody; relating to court
jurisdiction and findings pertaining to children who are in
state custody; and modifying the licensing requirements for
foster care."
- MOVED HCS CSSSSB 82(HSS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 363
SHORT TITLE: NO PUBLIC FUNDS/FACILITIES FOR ABORTION
SPONSOR(s): HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
03/12/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/12/12 (H) HSS, JUD, FIN
03/22/12 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 82
SHORT TITLE: FOSTER CARE LICENSING/STATE CUSTODY
SPONSOR(s): DAVIS
02/04/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/11 (S) HSS, JUD
03/11/11 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
03/11/11 (S) HSS, JUD
03/14/11 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/11 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/16/11 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/16/11 (S) Moved CSSSSB 82(HSS) Out of Committee
03/16/11 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/18/11 (S) HSS RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
03/18/11 (S) DP: DAVIS, MEYER, ELLIS, EGAN, DYSON
03/30/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/30/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/30/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/01/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/01/11 (S) Moved CSSSSB 82(JUD) Out of Committee
04/01/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/04/11 (S) JUD RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
04/04/11 (S) DP: FRENCH, COGHILL, WIELECHOWSKI,
PASKVAN, MCGUIRE
04/07/11 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/07/11 (S) VERSION: CSSSSB 82(JUD)
04/08/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/08/11 (H) HSS, JUD
04/14/11 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/14/11 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/22/12 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
RON PRATT, President
TGM Ministries
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the work of TGM (This Generation
Ministries) ministries in Alaska.
ALICIA MCCARROLL
TGM ministries
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the work of TGM ministries in
Alaska.
JIM POUND, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 363 on behalf of the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee, which
Representative Keller chairs.
JOSEPH LAPP
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 363.
KAREN QUIRK
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 363.
DIRK MOFFATT
Alaska Right To Life
Forty Days for Life
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 363.
KATHLEEN GUSTAFSON
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 363.
MIKE DUNLEAVY
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 363.
PAIGE HODSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 363.
JOSHUA DECKER, Staff Attorney at Law
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 363.
CLOVER SIMON
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion on HB 363.
KAREN LEWIS, Educational Director
Alaska Right to Life
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 363.
LORA WILKE
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 363.
KAYT SUNWOOD
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 363.
CAROL CAIRNES
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 363.
KRISTA HOWARD, student
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 363.
CANDY MILLER
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 363.
ROSANNE CURRAN
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 363.
JENNIE GRIMWOOD
Eagle Forum Alaska
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 363.
HAYLEE SHIELDS
Forty Days For Life
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 363.
MARY KEHRHAHN-STARK
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 363.
TERRY BOREN
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 363.
MATT JOHNSON, Executive Director
Alaska Right to Life
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 363.
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 82, as the prime sponsor of
the bill.
CELESTE HODGE, Staff
Senator Bettye Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the proposed changes to SB 82 on
behalf of the prime sponsor of the bill, Senator Davis.
TRACY SPARTZ-CAMPBELL, Deputy Director
Central Office
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during discussion of SB
82.
AMANDA METIVIER, Statewide Coordinator
Facing Foster Care in Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 82.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:02:54 PM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
Representatives Keller, Miller, Kerttula, Dick, and Seaton were
present at the call to order. Representatives Herron and
Millett arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^Presentation: TGM, Statewide Suicide Prevention
Presentation: TGM, Statewide Suicide Prevention
3:03:32 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
a presentation about Statewide Suicide Prevention by This
Generation Ministries (TGM).
3:04:48 PM
RON PRATT, President, TGM Ministries, said that he and his wife,
Yolanda Pratt, had been professionally working with youth for 26
years. He stated that he and his wife had moved to Alaska in
1998. He reported that TGM Ministries went into the villages in
Alaska to deal with the issue of suicide, and the scheduled
offerings included: summer camps, concerts, winter camps,
workshops, conferences, and special events, "whatever it takes
to get into the heart of a young person and speak worth and
speak life and speak hope into them before something drastic
happens and they end it all." He stated that the TGM Ministry
had a lot of experience and history, and were passionate about
reaching Alaskan Native young people.
CHAIR KELLER added that the rates of suicide were higher in
Alaska than anywhere else, especially among Alaskan Natives.
3:07:03 PM
ALICIA MCCARROLL, TGM ministries, declared that she was
passionate about TGM ministries and this current generation.
She declared that, although young people were the future of
Alaska, they were still a contributing, vital part of Alaska
today and could make a positive impact and difference. She
recounted her past, and her introduction into TGM ministries at
the age of 9 years, which had made her feel validated as a
person who could make a difference. This helped her decide to
dedicate her life to Alaskans of all ages. She voiced a need
for people who struggled with the issues of suicide to be able
to talk about it. She shared that TGM spoke at school
assemblies, providing motivational talks for youth to become
active immediately. She counseled for young people to stay in
Alaska, become members of their community, and help it become
great.
3:10:05 PM
MR. PRATT reflected that the TGM ministers used whatever tools
were necessary, including multi-media and music, in its remote
camps. He played a short video, titled "Angela," which was a
story that TGM wanted to share.
CHAIR KELLER expressed his pleasure for seeing the results to
problems the legislature often encountered.
HB 363-NO PUBLIC FUNDS/FACILITIES FOR ABORTION
3:12:20 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 363, "An Act prohibiting the use of public funds
for abortion." He acknowledged that he introduced the proposed
bill for the committee "without a lotta interaction with the
committee." He expressed his appreciation for the committee's
indulgence.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his appreciation for Chair
Keller's proclamation that the bill was sponsored by Chair
Keller and not the House Health and Social Services Standing
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA declared her objection to the
introduction of the proposed bill. She pointed to Alaska
statute which read that a committee chair could not introduce
legislation on behalf of a committee without agreement from the
majority of the committee. She requested that the committee
follow the proper process, and that, should there not be
agreement by the majority of the committee, the proposed
legislation be withdrawn.
CHAIR KELLER declared that he would withdraw the legislation if
Representative Kerttula maintained her objection and that was
the vote of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that she maintained her
objection, as the statute did not allow this process, and she
disagreed with the proposed legislation.
CHAIR KELLER offered his belief that a committee chair could
introduce legislation on behalf of a committee, as long as there
was the opportunity for committee members to express themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered to continue with the hearing and
to request a legal opinion. She stated her understanding that
concurrence of the majority of the committee was necessary. She
temporarily withdrew her objection, pending a legal opinion.
CHAIR KELLER said that [introduction of] a committee bill had
never been voted on during his time in the legislature.
CHAIR KELLER explained that the proposed bill was "about whether
or not we're going to pay for it [abortion] with state funds, if
we're gonna pay for elective abortion with state funds." He
stated that the proposed bill was a follow up to an earlier
[House Health and Social Services Standing Committee, March 13,
2012] hearing on state funding for pregnancy termination.
3:16:22 PM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, defined the proposed bill, HB 363, as "an
appropriations measure" which cut money from current state
spending. He reported that the Department of Health and Social
Services spent more than $250,000 of Medicaid funds on
unnecessary termination of pregnancies, with an additional
$250,000 on related services. Reading from Black's Law
Dictionary, he defined Medicaid to be: "a form of public
assistance sponsored jointly by the federal and state government
providing medical aid for people whose income falls below a
certain level." He read the legal definition of medical:
"pertaining, relating of, belonging to the study and practice of
medicine, or the science and art of the investigation,
prevention, cure, and alleviation of a disease." He stated that
neither legal definition related to life termination or
abortion. He explained that the proposed bill simply states
that the State of Alaska will no longer pay for an elected
procedure, and those funds would be returned to the general
fund, or used in a more productive Medicaid service.
3:18:04 PM
CHAIR KELLER reviewed that, since an Alaska Supreme Court case
in 2001, although the legislature had put language in the
appropriation bill declaring that no money should be spent on
abortions, the money was spent regardless. He offered his
belief that the money had been spent in compliance with a court
order. He opined that the proposed bill "was a way to move
forward to prohibit the use of public funds for abortions."
3:19:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated her belief that the Alaska
Supreme Court had twice ruled that, under the Alaska State
Constitution, the state could not refuse to pay for abortion
services, if publicly funded pregnancy and health care services
were provided.
CHAIR KELLER, in response, said that he had recently read the
state supreme court decision as written by Chief Justice Fabe.
He declared:
This case concerns the state's denial of public
assistance to eligible women whose health is in
danger, it does not concern state payment for elective
abortions.
CHAIR KELLER opined that, as there were no guidelines in
regulation or state law for the danger of a woman's health or
for an elective abortion, the committee could define those
terms.
3:20:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA posed the question whether proposed HB
363 would restrict the right for a wealthy woman to pay for an
abortion without state funding.
CHAIR KELLER stated that proposed HB 363 was "about Medicaid
abortions, it does not restrict anybody's right to pay for an
abortion."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, in response, queried that one group of
women were able to have a choice, whereas another group did not.
CHAIR KELLER agreed that this was the basis for the decision for
equal access to Medicaid services, and the question that needed
definition was: "just what is a medically necessary abortion."
He stated that this definition was necessary to determine
guidance, as "without the guidance it's been continual turmoil
and confusion in the state."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA proffered that this would treat Alaskans
differently, dependent on their ability to pay.
CHAIR KELLER declared that there was not a requirement to pay
for abortions for a wealthy person, and that proposed HB 363
would remove public funding for abortions.
MR. POUND offered his belief that the judicial interpretation
was now based on the undue burden clause, which changed the
requirements of constitutionality for "who does and who does
not." He remarked that Medicaid in Alaska did not pay for oral
contraceptives, and "therefore an elective abortion is
essentially a form of contraceptive."
3:23:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA emphasized that "no one uses abortion as
a contraception time after time in Alaska. That's not something
women like to do." She affirmed that any analogy between
contraception and abortion was really wrong.
MR. POUND offered his belief that abortion was quite often used
as a form of contraception.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA declared that she heavily doubted those
statistics.
CHAIR KELLER interjected that the constitutional issues of the
proposed bill would be addressed in the next committee of
referral, the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
3:24:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if it was possible for DHSS to
separate the costs for abortions from those for abortion
prevention or related services.
MR. POUND deferred to a response from the commissioner of DHSS.
3:25:05 PM
CHAIR KELLER opened public testimony.
3:25:37 PM
JOSEPH LAPP, reading from a prepared statement, urged the
committee to reject the proposed bill. He declared that the
simple fact, regardless of the moral or ethical view on
abortion, was that the Alaska Supreme Court had ruled that any
gender based discrimination in the provision of medical services
was a violation of the Alaska State Constitution. He stated
that the government should not be wasting its time and resources
in opposition to this, as every previous attempt at legislation
had been found to be unconstitutional. Suggesting that the cost
to present this legislation would be more than any potential
savings it would engender, he surmised that proposed HB 363
would also be rejected by the courts. He listed other potential
legislative issues to address, which he deemed to be of greater
importance. He asked if this proposed bill was an effective use
of time for the House Health and Social Services Standing
Committee. Referencing proposed HB 5, [legislation for a high
school graduation requirement for U.S. constitutional history
also introduced by Chair Keller] he asked if proposed HB 363 was
in apparent disregard for the U.S. Constitution and the rulings
of the state supreme court. He declared that the state supreme
court had consistently upheld access to abortions. He alleged
that the proposed bill limited, rather than promoted, the access
of Alaskan women to health care. He asked that the committee
avoid partisan politics when discussing the health of Alaskans.
He questioned whether the proposed bill promoted the health of
Alaskans, or if it created barriers to health care access.
Directing attention to page 1, line 13, he read:
including money paid by a university student as part
of the tuition or fees paid to the University of
Alaska, may not be used to assist in or provide
facilities for an abortion or for training to perform
an abortion.
MR. LAPP opined that, although the University of Alaska did not
have a medical program, the proposed bill would not allow the
training of doctors to perform abortions, which went beyond the
scope of the proposed bill.
3:29:44 PM
KAREN QUIRK stated her support of proposed HB 363.
3:31:26 PM
DIRK MOFFATT, Alaska Right To Life, Forty Days for Life, stated
that the taking of the life of an unborn child was wrong, and
that state funds should not be used for elective surgery.
3:32:35 PM
KATHLEEN GUSTAFSON stated that the proposed bill violated the
constitutional rights of women, the right to privacy, equal
rights, and the equal right for representation. She adamantly
pointed out that these rights were the first guarantee to the
citizens of Alaska by the Alaska State Constitution. She
declared that proposed HB 363 used health care funding as "a
weapon that the government can use to control women's behavior,
limiting the options of poor women who are least able to defend
their rights when they are threatened." She directed attention
to page 2, line 24, and read: "Nothing in this section shall be
construed as creating or recognizing a right to abortion or a
right to federal or state funds for family planning services."
She emphasized that, in Alaska, women have had a legal right to
abortion since 1971, two years prior to Roe et al. v. Wade,
District Attorney of Dallas County. She declared that any
attempt to use the legislature to block a woman's access to a
legal procedure was "an illegitimate use of your power." She
reiterated that the Alaska State Constitution guaranteed every
citizen equal protection under the law, and she reminded the
committee members that they were sworn to uphold the Alaska
[State] Constitution. She stated her belief that using women as
political kindling should be beneath the institution. She
declared that prohibiting state health care providers from
discussion of abortion and forbidding students from using state
student loans to pay for medical training, both included in the
proposed bill, were "totalitarian tactics that had no place in a
free society." She urged opposition to the proposed bill, and
strongly suggested that, instead, the committee secure and
protect rights for Alaskans.
3:34:32 PM
CHAIR KELLER replied that legislators also reserved the right to
interpret the [Alaska State] Constitution.
3:35:04 PM
MIKE DUNLEAVY said that the State of Alaska did not have the
right to end the life of any of its citizens. He opined that
any funding for abortion services could be better spent for the
health care of women and children.
3:35:39 PM
PAIGE HODSON, stating her opposition to the proposed bill, said
that the U.S. Supreme Court had declared that a state could not
prohibit or limit access to abortion. She offered her belief
that the proposed bill would narrow access to abortion,
excessively constrain women's access to information, place a gag
order on medical professionals, limit training of medical
procedures, increase cost to the State of Alaska, and increase
risk to unborn, unwanted children. She stated that this would
also result in increased litigation. She declared her
indignation and offense regarding statements from Representative
Dick "asking for permission slips to get health care, asking for
panels of three doctors and insinuating that one woman's doctor
would be a liar, and for equating a rape to someone's moral
objections." She established that an apology to the women of
Alaska for those statements was in order.
CHAIR KELLER asked that all testifiers be respectful.
3:38:10 PM
JOSHUA DECKER, Staff Attorney at Law, American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) of Alaska, referring to a letter from Jeffrey
Mittman, Executive Director, ACLU of Alaska, dated March 21,
2012, [Included in members' packets] said that, as reproductive
decisions, including abortion, were a fundamental right which
was protected by the Alaska State Constitution, the proposed
bill was unconstitutional as it removed public funding from
medically necessary abortions. This was in direct conflict with
the 2001 state supreme court decision, Department of Health &
Human Services v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, Inc. He
declared the proposed bill to be bad policy, as it would cause
harm for low income women by forcing them into the limited
options of choosing to harm their own health or their fetus's
health, or wait until "their life is in eminent fear of death."
He directed attention to page 2, line 17, declaring that the
escape clause was insufficient, as it was nearly identical to
the language addressed by the aforementioned state supreme court
decision, which had already been determined to be
unconstitutional. He voiced opposition by the ACLU for proposed
HB 363. He provided the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics
report, which stated that fewer than 61 percent of the women who
had abortions, had more than one abortion, and that fewer than 4
percent of those women had more than three abortions. He stated
that this supported the earlier statement by Representative
Kerttula that "no one uses abortion as a contraception time
after time in Alaska. That's not something women like to do."
3:40:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, noting that Mr. Decker had referred to
the proposed bill as bad policy, questioned whether the ACLU
customarily designated bad policy and good policy. She asked if
the ACLU won every case in which it participated.
3:41:22 PM
MR. DECKER replied that ACLU carefully selected cases to protect
and respect the civil rights of Alaskan under the federal and
state constitution.
3:41:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT posed the question, if the ACLU were
asked to represent a woman who had decided to choose an abortion
or her mate who did not support this choice, who would ACLU
represent.
3:42:07 PM
MR. DECKER replied that the ACLU board selected cases based on
the facts, and that he could not answer regarding a hypothetical
case. He stated that decisions for representation were selected
based on the protection and enhancement for the civil liberties
of Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if the ACLU considered an unborn
child to have civil liberties.
MR. DECKER, in response to Representative Millett, said that it
was not an easily answered question, as it was not a matter of
personal consideration. He reminded the committee that the
discussion was for whether this proposed bill was
unconstitutional per the Alaska Supreme Court ruling in a
similar case.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT declared her respect for the ACLU and its
defense of "all walks of life, not one side or the other of an
issue."
3:43:41 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked, as Mr. Decker had announced that the
proposed bill was unconstitutional, if this meant that the
legislature was not capable of defining what was medically
necessary.
MR. DECKER replied that the legislature lacked the ability,
through legislation, to contradict a decision by the Alaska
Supreme Court about the meaning or requirements of the Alaska
State Constitution.
CHAIR KELLER offered his belief that the legislature could write
laws without any restrictions for crafting definitions.
Directing attention to the aforementioned Department of Health &
Human Services v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, Inc. decision,
he declared that the ruling was made in a different context,
with different meanings. He allowed that there was now a lot
more information, including a Center for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) definition for medically necessary. He declared
that Alaska was in the minority of states which paid for
elective abortions. He opined that this was a legitimate area
for legislative exploration, and that there should be discussion
in a search for options.
3:45:30 PM
MR. DECKER encouraged the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee to review the state supreme court decision
for Department of Health & Human Services v. Planned Parenthood
of Alaska, Inc., specifically the escape clause, which he
determined was nearly identical to that in the proposed bill on
page 2, line 17. He offered his belief that this similarity
would make the proposed bill unconstitutional.
CHAIR KELLER assessed that Chief Justice Fabe had made 15
references to medically necessary abortions in the
aforementioned decision, and that she had expressly noted that
it did not apply to elective abortions. He asserted that it was
his right to "try to attempt to define to make those definitions
in legislation." He expressed his agreement with Representative
Millett's assessment of the ACLU and its examination of proposed
legislation.
3:46:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if the proposed legislation could
separate abortions from abortion preventive services, which
included pre-natal care, advice for full term birth, and post-
natal care.
3:47:17 PM
MR.DECKER explained that the proposed legislation was
unconstitutional because it limited medically necessary
abortions, which was in direct contravention of the state
supreme court decision. He asked for clarification to "the
teasing out of counseling and other services versus abortion."
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, in response, stated that abortion
services did include pre-natal care, advice to take the
pregnancy full term, and post-natal care, and he questioned
whether the proposed bill eliminated these services as well as
elective abortions.
3:48:13 PM
MR. DECKER affirmed that the proposed bill prohibited funding
for medically necessary abortions, as well as other services,
and he directed attention to page 2, line 8, which referred to
counseling and referral services. He declared that refusal of
funding for any of these would violate the equal protection
clause.
3:48:57 PM
CHAIR KELLER said "I, again, take issue with your determination
on this bill." He paraphrased from the limitations on page 2,
line 17 of the proposed bill, which read:
The limitations in (a) - (f) of this section do not
apply to an abortion [performed] when (1) the life of
the mother is endangered by a physical disorder,
physical illness, or physical injury; (2) the life of
the mother is endangered by a physical condition
caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself; or (3)
the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest.
CHAIR KELLER agreed that this was the language in question.
3:49:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, offering her belief that the proposed
bill was unconstitutional, asked Mr. Decker for his evaluation
of the difficulty to win this case, in light of the state
supreme court decision that equal rights did not allow similarly
situated people to be treated differently. She asked if she was
reading this correctly.
CHAIR KELLER opined that Representative Kerttula was not reading
the proposed bill correctly, as there was "room for a definition
of medically necessary."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, in response to Chair Keller, clarified
that she had directed her question to Mr. Decker, and laughing,
declared, "I know we don't agree, respectfully."
3:51:11 PM
MR. DECKER, in response to Representative Kerttula, said that
the proposed bill was in direct conflict with case law and that
the footnote to the state supreme court opinion spoke
conclusively to the limitations just discussed.
3:52:17 PM
CLOVER SIMON, Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, asked
if she could first discuss Planned Parenthood.
CHAIR KELLER approved the request by Ms. Simon, and then stated
that he reserved his right to have further hearings on the
proposed bill, and, dependent on the legal opinion for its
allowance as a committee bill, he would have the committee vote
to hear the proposed bill.
3:53:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked which version of the proposed bill
was being discussed.
3:54:01 PM
CHAIR KELLER clarified that he wanted Version M to be the
working draft.
3:54:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 363, Version 27-LS1441\M, Mischel,
3/12/12, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version M was adopted as the working document.
MS. SIMON reported that Planned Parenthood was a non-profit
health care provider with 27 health centers in Alaska, Idaho,
and Washington. She offered some background on Planned
Parenthood, and stated that its services were primarily for
birth control starts, well woman exams, cervical cancer
screening, breast cancer screening, and testing and treatment of
sexually transmitted infections. She detailed that 90 percent
of its services were aimed at the prevention of unintended
pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. She stated that
Planned Parenthood also provided first trimester medication and
in-clinic abortions, although this was less than 10 percent of
its services. She shared that while funding was primarily from
fees collected for clinical services, 72 percent was generated
from self-pay and third party payers, 14 percent of its revenue
was garnered from state, federal, or local grants, and 10
percent was from individual donors. She declared that Planned
Parenthood did not support proposed HB 363, as it was necessary
for poor women to have access to abortion services. She
expressed agreement with the ACLU analysis regarding the
constitutionality of the proposed bill and the aforementioned
state supreme court decision that all therapeutic abortions were
covered. She pointed out that the definition for therapeutic
abortions, which included medically necessary, was contained in
the Alaska statutes. She expressed her concern with a ban for
counseling or referrals for abortions by any organizations which
received state funds, as a broad interpretation would disallow
options counseling and referrals through the family planning
services required under federal law and paid with federal funds.
She asked that the committee consider that, under the PPACA, the
option to add family planning-only services to the Alaska
Medicaid program was greatly simplified, and only required the
state to submit a state plan amendment to supply the service.
She estimated that this family planning amendment to Medicaid,
serving more than 7000 women, would prevent about 360 abortions,
a 20 percent decrease to the current Alaska abortion rate. She
declared that the federal funding of 90 percent for the program
would save the State of Alaska about $6 million in future
Medicaid costs. She emphasized that the decision for whether or
not to become a parent was deeply personal and should only "be
made by a woman in consultation with her family, her faith, and
her doctor." She declared a desire to maintain protection of
that right for all women, regardless of socio-economic status.
3:58:22 PM
CHAIR KELLER extended his apology, stating that earlier in the
meeting he had read from the incorrect version of the proposed
bill, and he now referred to page 2, line 18 of Version M, which
he declared to be "a little different" than the earlier version.
He stated that this proposed bill "does not apply to an abortion
performed (1) when the abortion is medically necessary, as
determined by a licensed physician in the state, or (2) when the
pregnancy is a result of an act of rape or incest." He pointed
out that there was a specific definition for elective abortion
and for medically necessary.
3:59:26 PM
KAREN LEWIS, Educational Director, Alaska Right to Life, stated
that testimony from earlier witnesses "act like the court have
never been wrong, like what they say is the absolute truth,
absolutely, forever, and it's not true. You just go back 150
years and lots of people owned slaves, and at that time, that
was normal and people that went against it got a lotta guff."
She offered her belief that "that's exactly what's going to
happen with killing babies. People are going to look back at
this time and say what were those people thinking." She
declared that this issue was "forcing those of us who understand
that abortion is evil, is morally depraved, that it kills a
child in the womb, and this state is trying to force us to pay
our money to kill children in the womb, and that is
unconscionable." She stated that she wanted no part of this,
and that she desired the end of all abortions. She opined that
more than 50 percent of people in the United States considered
themselves pro-life.
4:01:26 PM
LORA WILKE urged the committee to reject the proposed bill. She
expressed her bewilderment with the House Health and Social
Services Standing Committee, offering her belief that the
committee's purpose was "to promote health, and to help the
citizens of the state live a healthy life." She declared that
the proposed bill was not helping anyone, was wasting time, and
would cost more to defend in the courts than the cost of the
abortions it presumed to prevent. She extended her thanks to
Representative Kerttula for ensuring the correct process for the
introduction of legislation, and to Representative Millett for
mentioning that men should also be involved with this
discussion. She expressed her disagreement with any
controversial legislation introduced without sponsorship by an
individual, and not a committee. She urged the committee to
"reject this bill."
4:03:20 PM
KAYT SUNWOOD expressed her opposition to the proposed bill,
stating that any law which limited access was targeting poor
women, and was an attack on the Alaska values of privacy,
individual freedom of government interference, and fair
treatment under the law. She declared that the proposed bill
"disproportionately disadvantages women, which violates equal
treatment gender wise." She emphasized that all women,
regardless of income, deserved equal access to reproductive
health options.
4:04:20 PM
CAROL CAIRNES stated that she was opposed to proposed HB 363.
She said that developmental problems of the fetus could be the
reason for abortion, and that the decision for termination
should be made only by the woman and the medical professionals
with whom she consults. She declared that the State of Alaska
should leave medical decisions to medical professionals in
consultation with the patient. She opined that it was likely
the proposed bill would be determined to be unconstitutional.
She declared that that it was not the role of the legislature to
determine appropriate medical treatment.
4:06:39 PM
KRISTA HOWARD, student, University of Alaska Anchorage,
emphasized her disappointment for the remarks toward women's
health care and women's rights, as Alaska had once been in the
forefront of women's rights and reproductive choice. She stated
that the proposed bill threatened the fundamental and
constitutionally guaranteed right for legal and safe abortion
services, and that legislators should not be placing barriers to
these services. She stressed that any law which targeted low
income women was an attack on Alaskan values, individual
freedom, and the right to privacy, all of which were guaranteed
by the Alaska State Constitution. She stipulated that Alaska
should remain at the forefront of women's rights and
reproductive choices. She specified that prevention of
unintended pregnancy was the best way to reduce abortions.
4:08:03 PM
CANDY MILLER asked about the cost of an abortion, and if there
was a listing for percentage of abortions due to rape, or
"catastrophic situations that are a danger of the death of the
mother." She expressed concern for double billing, and declared
that private insurance should be the focus. She offered her
belief that there was a growing co-dependency on the state, as
people were not being responsible for themselves. She opined
that an unborn child "has a voice and their communication is
life." She read passages from the Fourteenth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution. She declared support for proposed HB 363,
and opined that car insurance companies were recognizing unborn
children. She offered her belief that this was an epiphany and
there was a need for the corresponding laws.
4:12:23 PM
MS. SIMON, in response to Chair Keller, said that the cost for
an abortion ranged from $600 to $800 in the first trimester,
depending on the provider. She clarified that the Medicaid
payment was about $400.
4:12:50 PM
ROSANNE CURRAN directed attention to a rally, the March for
Life, in Washington, D.C., in protest of the Supreme Court
ruling on Roe et al. v. Wade, District Attorney of Dallas
County. She presented that protests had been occurring since
that court decision, in 1973. She mentioned that federal
funding for Planned Parenthood was $349 million in the prior
year. She offered her belief that no government would require
its citizens to pay for "something that they found morally
repugnant." She quoted from a statement by the AUL (Americans
United for Life) that read: "the federal government should not
be forcing Americans to pay for abortions or abortion coverage."
She declared that the proposed bill could stop state funding for
abortions, and save the state about $750,000. She declared that
she did not want her tax money funding elective abortions.
4:15:38 PM
JENNIE GRIMWOOD, Eagle Forum Alaska, offered her belief that
"Medicaid fraud was rampant in the abortion industry." She
referred to a recent court filing in which Planned Parenthood
was alleged to have been overpaid by $5.7 million for services
that were not covered by Medicaid. She stated that abortion was
a moral decision, and offered a story of a child born as the
result of a rape. She announced that "Alaska should not provide
public funds for abortions."
4:17:38 PM
HAYLEE SHIELDS, Forty Days For Life, stated that the Alaska
State Constitution declared that all persons had "a natural
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that
all persons are equal and entitled to protection under the law."
She opined that it was a direct contradiction of the Alaska
State Constitution to fund abortions, as this would take the
life of an innocent person. She suggested a consideration of
whether something was right or wrong, instead of how much it
cost. She offered her belief that Alaskans should "no longer
condone or be a party to the willful slaughter of innocent
lives." She requested passage of proposed HB 363.
4:19:21 PM
MARY KEHRHAHN-STARK stated that, as all Alaskans held a strong
value for individual freedom, discrimination for medical
procedures would not be tolerated, especially to those women who
were the most poor and vulnerable. She declared, "Shame,
Representative Keller, in attempting to use your governmental
power to strip individual rights because of your religious
beliefs." She noted that the decision to end a pregnancy was a
very personal, individual decision, emphasizing that abortion
was not a form of birth control. She relayed that abortion had
been legalized in 1970, and been reaffirmed in 1997 and 2001.
She offered her belief that Alaskans supported reproductive
freedom for men and for women, from governmental interference,
with fair treatment under the law. She pointed out that this
was a moral decision for everyone, and, as it needed to be fair
for all Alaskans, it was especially important for
representatives of the state to recognize. She asked why the
legislature should determine whether an abortion was elective or
medically necessary, as they were not the person who was living
with the pregnancy.
4:21:43 PM
TERRY BOREN declared her agreement with the supporters of the
proposed bill about one thing that "abortion is far more than a
form of birth control." She established that access to abortion
and family planning was a necessary and indispensable
requirement for competent, humane health care, as pregnancy was
risky, dangerous, and costly. She asked why the state would
want to intervene in these difficult decisions. She reported
that legislation had made it legal for abortions in Alaska in
1970. She admonished Representative Dick for advocating that
women be required to have permission from the man who
impregnated them, in order to have an abortion. She suggested
that this might be about controlling a woman's fertility, or
controlling her morality. She declared that control of a
woman's sexuality by the church or the state was not allowed.
She presented a personal story of her pregnancy. She summarized
that proposed HB 363, by forbidding disclosure of pregnancy
options and referrals for abortions, violated federal funding
laws and "goes against everything Alaskans stand for."
4:27:53 PM
MATT JOHNSON, Executive Director, Alaska Right to Life, offered
his belief that most people would prefer there to be fewer
abortions. He referenced a recent NPR (National Public Radio)
poll which stated that 59 percent of Americans found abortion to
be wrong. He opined that the heart of the bill was whether
people who found abortion to be morally objectionable should be
complicit by paying for abortion. He referenced other polls
that reflected Americans to be opposed to federal funding for a
national health care law. He offered his belief that the
proposed bill was not about restricting anyone's right to
abortion, but was about who would pay. He stated that he did
not want to be complicit with the state payment for this
procedure. He suggested that "the hubris of the courts in
subverting the legislature's constitutional role should not be a
reason to withdraw this bill." On behalf of Alaska Right to
Life, he declared strong support for HB 363.
4:30:46 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked that everyone keep an open mind, and declared
that the restriction defined by the state supreme court was for
abortions that were medically necessary. He declared his desire
to explore the remaining options with this Alaska Supreme Court
decision, and to explore a possible definition. He declared
that he would introduce this proposed bill next year, if there
was a legal decision to not allow its current introduction.
[HB 363 was held over]
SB 82-FOSTER CARE LICENSING/STATE CUSTODY
4:32:20 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 82(JUD), "An Act
relating to the procedures and jurisdiction of the Department of
Health and Social Services for the care of children who are in
state custody; relating to court jurisdiction and findings
pertaining to children who are in state custody; and modifying
the licensing requirements for foster care."
4:32:48 PM
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS, Alaska State Legislature, said that her
staff member, Celeste Hodge, would explain the proposed changes
and compromises. She said that she would also be available for
any questions.
4:33:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK moved to adopt the proposed House committee
substitute (HCS) for CSSSSB82(JUD), Version 27-LS0500\R,
Lauckhaupt\Mischel, 3/6/12, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version R was adopted as the working
document.
4:33:55 PM
CELESTE HODGE, Staff, Senator Bettye Davis, Alaska State
Legislature, directed attention to the proposed changes in
Version R. She stated that there were no changes in Section 1
or Section 2. She explained that there was a new Section 3,
identifying page 3, lines 11 - 17, and read from the Explanation
of Changes [Included in members' packets]:
amends provisions for extensions of state custody
orders to distinguish among circumstance of release
and need for out of home care. The proposed changes,
page 3, line 11-17 were developed in consultation with
the Department of Law and the Office of Children's
Services and delineate statutorily the situations
under which a youth may reenter state custody after
being released. This delineation was needed to ensure
proper applications of the reentry provision passed in
2010. Specifically, the proposed changes enable youth
to reenter state custody if they were released to
their parents' custody between ages 16 - 18 but those
parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child.
Page 3, lines 19-27, this language was added to
clarify the conditions that must be met for a youth to
reenter state custody.
MS. HODGE stated that Section 4 was renumbered to Section 5,
Section 5 was renumbered to Section 6, Section 6 was renumbered
to Section 7, and Section 7 was renumbered to Section 8.
4:35:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the majority of the changes were
on page 3, lines 19-24.
4:36:03 PM
MS. HODGE clarified that all the changes were on page 3, lines
11-17 and 19-27.
4:36:39 PM
CHAIR KELLER, in response to Senator Davis, said that he was not
going to submit an amendment.
4:36:51 PM
SENATOR DAVIS announced that all the contributing parties were
in agreement to pass Version R.
4:37:05 PM
CHAIR KELLER, directing attention to page 3, line 6, asked to
clarify that this was a resumption of custody.
4:37:51 PM
TRACY SPARTZ-CAMPBELL, Deputy Director, Central Office, Office
of Children's Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social
Services, stated that OCS was in agreement with the changes in
Version R.
4:38:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if OCS agreed with the proposed
bill, as well as the changes in Version R.
MS. SPARTZ-CAMPBELL confirmed that OCS agreed with the totality
of proposed Version R.
4:38:51 PM
AMANDA METIVIER, Statewide Coordinator, Facing Foster Care in
Alaska, testified that Facing Foster Care supported SB 82. She
reviewed that the proposed bill would: define siblings and
request their placement together; restrict the use of "another
planned permanent living arrangement" as a permanency goal;
loosen the licensing standard for rural communities so young
children could stay in the community, rather than move to urban
areas; and allow for re-entry to foster care after an earlier
release of custody.
4:42:26 PM
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
4:42:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK moved to report HCS CSSSSB82 (JUD), Version
27-LS0500\R, Luckhaupt/Mischel, 3/6/12, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HCS CSSSSB82 (HSS) was forwarded from
the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee.
4:43:44 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 4:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 82 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82 Sectional Summary.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82- CS SB 82 R Version 3-6-12.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82- Previous Version-4-4-11.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB82CSSS fiscal note-(JUD)-DHSS-FLSW-03-19-12.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| Sponsor Statement-Explanation of ChangesSB82 2.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| Compare SB 82 version X to version R.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB82 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB 82 Letters of Support.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| SB82 Background NCSL.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
SB 82 |
| HB0363A.PDF |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB 363 Sponsor.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| CSHB 363 Induced stats.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB363 Fiscal Note-DHSS-WCFH-3-22-12.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB363 Supporting -Leg Legal Prohibitio on the use fo public funds for abortion 3-9-12.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| CSHB 363 Sectional.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| CSHB 363 Abortion Law Development.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB 363 Dept spends.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB 363 Hyde amend points.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB 363 state's policies.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB 363 Title 16.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| HB363 Opposing- ACLU Review 3-21-2012.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |
| CSHB 363 HSS.pdf |
HHSS 3/22/2012 3:00:00 PM |
HB 363 |