Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
04/07/2016 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
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 | |
| SB72 | |
| SB89 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LMS. GRAVESISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 2016
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Liz Vazquez, Vice Chair
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative David Talerico
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Mike Dunleavy
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(L&C)
"An Act relating to the discharge of patients from hospitals and
to caregivers of patients after discharge from a hospital; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
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
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 72
SHORT TITLE: DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS FOR PATIENTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GIESSEL
03/11/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/11/15 (S) HSS, L&C
04/10/15 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/10/15 (S) Heard & Held
04/10/15 (S) MINUTE (HSS)
02/01/16 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/01/16 (S) Moved CSSB 72(HSS) Out of Committee
02/01/16 (S) MINUTE (HSS)
02/03/16 (S) HSS RPT CS 2DP 2NR NEW TITLE
02/03/16 (S) DP: GIESSEL, STOLTZE
02/03/16 (S) NR: STEDMAN, ELLIS
02/23/16 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/23/16 (S) Heard & Held
02/23/16 (S) MINUTE (L&C)
02/25/16 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/25/16 (S) Moved CSSB 72(L&C) Out of Committee
02/25/16 (S) MINUTE (L&C)
02/29/16 (S) L&C RPT CS 4DP NEW TITLE
02/29/16 (S) DP: COSTELLO, GIESSEL, MEYER, STEVENS
02/29/16 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/29/16 (S) VERSION: CSSB 72(L&C)
03/04/16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/16 (H) HSS
04/07/16 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
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 (EFDADD)
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
03/21/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/16 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
03/23/16 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/23/16 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 89(EDC) Out of Committee
03/23/16 (H) MINUTE (EDC)
03/24/16 (H) EDC RPT HCS (EDC) 4DP 2DNP 1NR
03/24/16 (H) DP: VAZQUEZ, TALERICO, COLVER, KELLER
03/24/16 (H) DNP: DRUMMOND, SPOHNHOLZ
03/24/16 (H) NR: SEATON
04/07/16 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS RMS. GRAVESISTER
JANE CONWAY, Staff
Senator Cathy Giessel
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 72, explained the
legislation by section, and answered questions on behalf of
Senator Giessel, prime sponsor.
EMMY VAN WHY, Intern
Senator Giessel
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Described SB 72, on behalf of Senator
Giessel, prime sponsor.
KATHLEEN TODD, M.D.
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 72, requested
clarification.
JEANNIE MONK, Senior Program Officer
Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association (ASHNHA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 72, testified and
answered questions.
MARIE DARLIN
AARP
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 72, testified in
support of the legislation.
JAYNE ANDREEN
AARP
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 72, testified in
support of the legislation.
KEN HELANDER, Advocacy Director
AARP
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 72, offered
testimony and background.
SENATOR MIKE DUNLEAVY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 89 presented his
bill.
KRISTIN McDONALD, Staff
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 89, answered
questions.
ELISSA GRAVES, Attorney
Alliance Defending Freedom
Sachse, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 89, testified
regarding the constitutionality of the legislation and addressed
concerns.
MARIO BIRD, Attorney
Alaska Right to Life
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 89, discussed bill
of attainder concerns.
NANCY BIENVENUE, R.N.
Alaska Family Council, Board Member
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 89, discussed
abortions.
ALISON CURRY, Staff
Great Northwest and Hawaiian Islands Area
Planned Parenthood
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 89, testified with
regard to Planned Parenthood.
LACY MORAN, Alaska Education Manager
Great Northwest and Hawaiian Islands Area
Planned Parenthood, Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 89, testified with
regard to Planned Parenthood.
JANE McMILLAN GINTER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 89, testified in
opposition to the legislation.
SARAH GINTER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 89, testified in
opposition to the legislation.
CHRISTINA NIEMI
League of Women Voters, Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 89, testified in
opposition to the legislation.
MELISSA ENGEL, Pastor
Douglas Community United Methodist Church
Douglas, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 89, testified in
opposition to the legislation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:03:19 PM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Representatives Seaton, Tarr, Wool, Talerico, and Stutes were
present at the call to order. Representative Vazquez arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
SB 72-DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS FOR PATIENTS
3:04:21 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(L&C), "An Act relating to the
discharge of patients from hospitals and to caregivers of
patients after discharge from a hospital; and providing for an
effective date."
3:04:52 PM
JANE CONWAY, Staff, Senator Cathy Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature was available to offer the sectional and answer
questions.
EMMY VAN WHY, Intern, Senator Cathy Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased the sponsor statement, as follows:
Senate Bill 72, the caregiver advise, record, and
enable act, or the Care Act is not about hospitals,
it's not really even about patients, it's about
caregivers. And it's important to reduce health care
costs and improve the health of Alaska citizens. This
bill seeks to improve post-discharge health outcomes
for patients by improving coordination with designated
caregivers, providing training to caregivers on
discharge tasks, enabling older or disabled Alaskans
to stay safely in their homes longer, and decreasing
the likelihood of hospital readmissions.
At any given time, around 128,000 Alaskans are
providing some type of caregiving services and support
to a loved one, friend, or neighbor. This assistance
is crucial and helps patients remain healthy in their
homes as long as possible. This is also a better
alternative than costly long-term care facilities like
nursing homes. And it is estimated to save
approximately $1 billion that would otherwise be spent
by the state. Alaska caregivers are increasingly
being asked to perform complex nursing and medical
tasks, such as dispensing countless medications,
administering injections and providing wound care
often with little or no training. Many family
caregivers report that they received little or no
training to perform these tasks and ended up stressed
and with a lack of confidence. Lack of adequate
preparation to perform post-discharge tasks
jeopardizes the patient's recovery, as well as often
puts the caregiver at risk for their own injury and
burnout.
Most of all, SB 72 will help Alaskans to live
independently at home and will support the family
caregivers who make this possible. Many states, 20 so
far, have passed the Care Act or similar legislation
and several other states are in the process. And, SB
72 contains these important provisions: it allows the
patient to name a lay caregiver with his or her
consent to provide after-care following discharge from
the hospital; the designated caregiver is notified of
the patient's discharge or transfer to another
facility; the hospital consults with the designated
caregiver and offers training to the caregiver for
aftercare medical or nursing tasks, either in person
or through video instruction; and the hospital will
adopt and maintain written policies.
And, we'd be happy to walk through the sectional, Mr.
Chairman, if you'd like.
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Conway to go through the sectional.
3:07:59 PM
MS. CONWAY paraphrased from the Sectional Overview [included in
members' packets], which read, [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1. AS 18.20 adds new sections:
Sec. 18.20.500: Requires hospital, before discharge,
assess the patient, provide patient opportunity to
designate a caregiver, who consents/agrees to provide
patient with aftercare
Sec. 18.20.510: Requires a hospital to provide
opportunity for a designated caregiver to participate
in the discharge planning of the patient; and that the
hospital provide training and/or instruction to the
designated caregiver on how to perform medical and
nursing aftercare prior to patient's discharge
Sec. 18.20.520: Requires a hospital to notify the
designated caregiver of the patient's discharge or
transfer
Sec. 18.20.530: Directs the hospital to adopt and
maintain written discharge policies. The policies must
comply with this chapter. The written policy must
specify requirements for naming of the designated
caregiver and those policies may incorporate best
practices for hospital discharge planning, such as
those outlined in Center for Medicaid and Medicare
Services (CMS) …and that the discharge plan is
appropriate for the patient's condition. The
discharge plan may not delay a discharge or transfer
of a patient or oblige hospital to divulge patient's
health information to the designated caregiver without
patient's consent
Sec. 18.20.540: The hospital and its contractors are
protected from lawsuit in regard to the discharge
planning of a patient
Sec. 18.20.550: This chapter many (sic) not interfere
with or supersede the powers/duties of an agent or
legal guardian acting upon a health care directive
Sec. 18.20.590: Provides definitions
Section 2: effective date of January 1, 2017.
3:10:46 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether this was for all patients after
discharge, and noted there were no age requirements or condition
requirements. He opined that this allows them to designate but
does not require that it be done.
MS. CONWAY said correct.
3:11:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered that she understands why the fiscal
note from the state would be zero, and asked for the response
from health care providers and possible increase in costs for
hospitals.
MS. CONWAY replied that the sponsor's office has worked closely
with the Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association
(ASHNHA), the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP),
and the Alaska Nurses Association. She explained that SB 72
maps out policies that they strive to do, and that most
hospitals actually do have fairly good discharge planning
policies, but not all. This legislation would bring all
hospitals in alignment with each other, which has been an active
cooperation between those three entities and the sponsor's
office, she said.
CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.
3:12:54 PM
KATHLEEN TODD, M.D., asked whether this only applies to
inpatient admissions, overnight outpatient observation, or is it
to every emergency room visit which actually would be a costly
and difficult thing to do. Also, she opined that according to
the Nursing Practice Act from a few years ago, nurses are not
allowed by their rules to teach anyone who is not a nurse and is
not a family member to do things that usually are only done by
nurses. They are not to teach aides or persons hired to get the
patient in and out of bed and into their wheelchair, those
people cannot do things that are deemed to be nursing acts.
This bill would probably be a step in the right direction if it
is, in fact, counter mandating that and saying that the paid
caregiver can be taught, who is not a family member, how to take
care of a burn as opposed to having to either assign an RN or
find a family member. She is hopeful this is a step in the
right direction and that it doesn't apply to every single
emergency room visit, she related.
MS. CONWAY answered that the bill is for hospital admissions
only, not emergency rooms. She deferred to Jeannie Monk for the
answer to Dr. Todd's second question.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the second question related to the
ability to train or teach care to non-family members.
3:15:44 PM
JEANNIE MONK, Senior Program Officer, Alaska State Hospital and
Nursing Home Association (ASHNHA), in response to the second
question opined that the bill is focused on unpaid family
caregivers. These unpaid family caregivers provide a wide range
of care at home, although, some of it could be nursing level if
the patient was in a facility. She explained that family
members are asked to give medication, wound care, and a variety
of care that would require a nurse if they were in a nursing
home, and when the patient is in their own home it is up to the
family members. She said she is unaware of anything that
precludes hospital staff training family caregivers in how to
care for their loved ones once they go home. She pointed out
that this is something that happens every day already, and no
change is being proposed in what is already happening.
CHAIR SEATON related that the bill will be up for another
hearing on Tuesday, and suggested that possibly she could
address that issue and get back to the committee.
MS. MONK said she would leave it to the sponsor to contact the
Nurses Association or someone with the answer.
3:17:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether this was a billable service,
how much time would be spent on this particular component, and
how is it reimbursed to the hospital.
MS. MONK responded that ASHNHA has been working with the
sponsor's office and AARP for more than one year. The original
version was prescriptive with specific timelines with concerns
of adding extra work with modifications of electronic health
records, they feel fine about Version Y. She related that it
will add some additional work but for the most part hospitals
already have discharge policies and this legislation forces them
to strengthen their discharge policies in a helpful manner. A
large problem hospitals face is when there is not a family
caregiver. The best possible scenario is when a person is
willing to be designated as the patient's caregiver and willing
to be trained. Hospitals want to be sure those caregivers have
the skills they need to take care of their family member at home
and this will require hospitals to modify their discharge
policies. There is a national CMS rule very similar to this,
she pointed out.
3:18:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether this was a billable service.
MS. MONK replied that she would not say yes or no because
hospital billing is complicated. Discharge planning is part of
the billable services that hospitals do, and she said she was
unsure whether it was a standalone billable code.
3:21:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ said that this bill is needed and she
appreciates its intent; however, the chapter dealing with the
definition of hospital is broad. She referred to AS
18.20.210(5), which read as follows:
(5) "hospital" includes a public health center and
general, tuberculosis, mental, chronic disease, and
other type of hospital, and related facilities,
including laboratory, outpatient department, nurses'
homes, and training facilities, and central services
facilities operated in connection with a hospital, but
does not include a hospital furnishing primarily
domiciliary care;
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ reiterated that it is a broad definition.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether she was reading the definition in AS
18.21.130.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ responded no, there is another definition
presently in the statutes, and she did not see where this was
totally replacing that definition.
MS. MONK offered that this legislation does not change any of
the definitions, it is referencing the definition of hospital
and no changes are proposed to change any definitions.
3:23:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ pointed out that she was reading the
definition AS 18.20.210, in the chapter dealing with
"hospitals." She referred to Article 02. Alaska Hospital and
Medical Facilities Survey and Construction Act, AS 18.20.140 -
18.20.220, and she said she was wondering whether something
needed to be reconciled.
CHAIR SEATON suggested asking the sponsor to address the
definition of hospitals.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ noted that it is not impossible to fix
and that she was bringing up the possible unintended
consequences.
MS. MONK said it was important to the drafters that this not
apply to hospitals treating mental disorders, that it be limited
to hospitals providing "traditional hospital services."
3:25:21 PM
MARIE DARLIN, AARP, agreed that there has been a lot of work on
this legislation to make it acceptable to all stakeholders. She
pointed out that a lot of the information the committee has been
provided in support of this legislation speaks to the fact there
are approximately 8,500 people providing unpaid care. This
legislation does not address paid caregivers, this is for the
unpaid family caregiver who takes care of the patient after they
leave the hospital. A concern of AARP is that there are
thousands and thousands of people doing this job that need this
kind of information to help them when taking the patient home.
MS. DARLIN pointed out that this legislation is not intended to
cover a lot of other things, even the definition of hospital.
It has been reviewed so that everyone is in agreement, some
hospitals are already doing it and doing a good job of it. This
also places responsibility so that there is an assigned
caregiver because too many people go home from the hospital with
no caregiver, or no one actually assigned the responsibility to
take care of that patient. By having an assigned caregiver
possibly the patient will not end up back in the hospital again
because they didn't receive the proper care at home.
3:28:13 PM
JAYNE ANDREEN, AARP, said she supports the testimony of Marie
Darlin in that this bill does a great job of recognizing the
role that caretakers have to provide, how important that is in
keeping people out of readmission to the hospital, and keeping
health care costs down. She offered that she has provided
aftercare for a loved one and it can be confusing, especially
when discussing wounds, treatment, bandaging, and various
medications. She said that a caregiver has the ability to
obtain the information they need.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether her understanding of the bill is also
that this allows a patient to designate a caregiver, but it's
not assigning a caregiver.
MS. ANDREEN agreed that is her understanding.
3:29:29 PM
KEN HELANDER, Advocacy Director, AARP, pointed out that the bill
is not about hospitals or even patients, it's about caregivers.
A study performed by the AARP Public Policy Institute a few
years ago found that approximately 46 percent of family
caregivers were faced with providing these complex medical tasks
when a family member was discharged. This would include
anything from medications or special diets to wound care, and/or
operating specialized medical equipment. He asked the committee
to consider someone going in for a hip replacement and at
discharge the caregiver is not prepared and does not understand
how to transfer that person, or assist in their mobility, and
that the risk of injury for the patient and the caregiver is
enormous. This bill was drafted as model legislation, he
explained, that has been passed in 22 states, to support family
caregivers with the idea that no family member, no lay
caregiver, should have to face these kinds of stresses and
perform these kinds of tasks at home alone because it increases
stress, the risk of injury, and certainly of hospital
readmission. He reminded the committee that readmission is
costly for hospitals. During these budget times in Alaska, the
idea of having a readmission, or a burned out family member
caregiver, and having to place the patient in paid care
somewhere, ultimately, will have an impact on the state budget.
He put forth that there are approximately 88,000 family
caregivers in the State of Alaska at any given time, and over
the course of a year it is approximately 128,000. When doing
the math, he said, with the cost of a nursing home approximately
$27,000 a month, it's easy to see how supporting family
caregivers is the way to go, and this bill is about supporting
family, friends, or neighbor caregivers.
3:32:45 PM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
CHAIR SEATON asked the sponsor's staff to address the two
previous questions: looking at the ability for nurses to teach
non-family members the levels of care necessary, and the
definition of hospital.
MS. CONWAY said she would research the answers and appear before
the committee next week.
3:35:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ clarified that the whole section adds
additional provisions to Article 04. Overtime limitations for
nurses. She related that the definition is confusing because it
is plugging that section in here when perhaps it should be
inserted under Article 01. Regulation of hospitals, where there
is another hospital definition cited. It may be more
appropriate to have the entire bill inserted under the
regulation of hospitals versus overtime limitations for nurses.
CHAIR SEATON noted that Ms. Conway understands the question and
will research it and come back to the committee.
3:36:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked why this legislation exempts mental
hospitals.
MS. CONWAY opined that a discharge plan for mentally disabled
could be far different and more complicated than a regular
hospital discharge, and the drafters stayed with medical.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ said she understood why it would simplify
the matter, but it has been her personal experience that this
requirement would be needed in a mental health setting.
Perhaps, even more critically, and it may be something down the
road in dealing with the different stakeholders, she said.
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Conway to discuss the issue and advise
the committee.
3:37:37 PM
MS. CONWAY referred to the National Care Act, the Caregiver
Advise, Report, and Enable Act, and said it was a national model
legislation and basically all of the states implementing this
type of legislation deal with the medical side. When the
sponsor was approached by AARP about legislation it was about
medical discharge planning.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ said it is a step in the right direction
and Rome wasn't built in a day.
[SB 72 was held over.]
SB 89-SCHOOLS: PARENT RTS;ABORT. PROVDRS LIMITS
3:38:34 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next 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."
CHAIR SEATON shared that he heard this bill in the House
Education Standing Committee and had requested that the bill
come to this committee to address health and social services
implications with medical conditions, infections, and public
health nurses.
3:40:05 PM
SENATOR MIKE DUNLEAVY, Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased
from the sponsor statement [included within members' packets],
which read:
The purpose of SB 89 Parental Rights in Education, is
to codify in state statute the inherent rights of
parents to direct the upbringing and education of
their children. As parents are the ultimate authority
regarding their children, this bill requires local
school boards to adopt policies which promote the
involvement of parents.
These policies must accommodate the following:
content of any activity, class, performance standard,
program, or standards-based assessment or test
required by the department
from any standards-based assessment or test required
by the department, and the absence cannot be counted
as unlawful
class, performance standard, or program they can
object and keep their child out of that particular
activity, and the absence cannot be counted as
unlawful
for religious holidays, and the absence cannot be
counted as unlawful
children may attend each human reproduction or sex
education instruction or presentation
In addition, this legislation would:
contracting with school districts and educational
service organizations
supplying materials to school districts on human
sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases
instruction on sexually transmitted diseases and
sexuality to school districts. As the stewards of
their children, parents must be guaranteed the right
to make the decisions they feel are best for their
children's education. I request your support for
Senate Bill 89.
3:41:47 PM
CHAIR SEATON referred to his mention of local control and, yet,
this is the only bill he has seen where the state overrides
school districts that have chosen its curricula. Now, he
commented, the state is saying it is going to prevent school
districts from exercising local control and adopting the
curricula that the school districts determine.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY replied that it may be the only bill this year
that has that approach, but in fact the legislature has had
bills throughout the history of the state, over 227 pages of
school law that limit, prohibit, and prescribe what schools can
do. Last year House Bill 44, was passed, imposing upon school
districts a law that would mandate training for dating violence
and sexual abuse. He offered to go through a series of other
laws, but as legislators they make law for schools and school
districts. It is part of the legislature's constitutional
mandate and history, from that perspective it is similar to any
law regarding the state's public school system in the 53 school
districts, he said.
CHAIR SEATON asked Senator Dunleavy to cite other instances
where the legislature restricts the school district from using
any curriculum it adopted on a local level.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY answered that his view is that the bill does
not restrict the curriculum, it restricts who is coming to the
school to deliver their program. School districts are not
prohibited on this bill from teaching sex education, adopting
curriculum regarding sex education. He reiterated that it is
who comes in with their program is what this bill restricts.
3:44:01 PM
CHAIR SEATON related that the question is then, what is the
legislative purpose of restricting that content from being
provided by certain people.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY replied that public schools are not open
assess, they are limited access and the younger the school age
there are more restrictions. This is supported by law and
Supreme Court rulings, it is limited access and states' and
school districts' have the right to limit who comes in there.
For example, PETA, the animal rights advocates, have their own
curriculum for schools, they have their own world view of how
animals are supposed to be dealt with. Therefore, if PETA is
allowed in schools it will have a particular world view on how
animals should relate to human beings. For example, in looking
at PETA's curriculum, it does not believe animals should be used
for entertainment, for food, for a whole host of reasons. By
having a group such as PETA come in where there are varying
world views held by parents and children, this can cause what
some have called "Cultural Wars" in the school. He related that
the schools should be neutral ground. For example, in 1977, he
was taught sex education in his health class, it was taught by a
certified teacher, by curriculum vetted by the school board, and
presented in class in a manner that was basically biology and
science. He argued that the state does have the right to limit
who will be in the schools, there is law dating back to 1966
that puts limitations on what groups can go into schools and
what they can do when they are in the schools.
3:46:11 PM
CHAIR SEATON agreed that it is not open access for schools and
people cannot go into the school without being invited. He then
asked the legislative purpose in telling local school boards
that if they make the determination, as many have, to have a
certain curriculum taught in their school that they cannot do
that.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY stated that abortion providers have, as part of
their services, the concept of abortion which some people find
objectionable, and that particular topic should be taught by
parents at home with their children. The reason for the bill is
the result of years of individual parents asking him to do
something about this because they are leaving the school system
and going to private school or leaving the neighborhood schools
to home schools. These parents [were opposed] to having these
outfits come in to their schools and having discussions with
their children, oftentimes unbeknownst to them, about sensitive
issues such as abortion, and certain approaches to sexuality, he
said.
3:47:50 PM
CHAIR SEATON surmised that Senator Dunleavy recognized that
parents have the full right to opt their children out of any
program being taught in the school, currently.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY answered that he recognizes there is an
inherent right to do that, but the first part of this bill
codifies a right for parents to withdraw their child from
anything that is objectionable.
3:48:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR surmised that Senator Dunleavy is advocating
and would be in support of mandatory sexuality education
programs in public schools so long as they are not taught by
abortion providers.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said he is not opposed to the State of Alaska
having a discussion and adopting standards, as it has for math,
science, and English, and having sex education taught in schools
by school personnel.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR remarked that she wanted to put on the
record that Senator Dunleavy's reference to House Bill 44 was
not accurate, the school boards will have the opportunity to
pick the curriculum it wants to teach in the school. There is a
requirement that personal body safety information be taught to
young children so they can defend themselves from a sexual
abuser. She expressed pride that the legislature took on that
issue and that the state would like to move from being a state
with the highest rates of child abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related that resources are a challenge and
asked how to address the public health issues related to the
high rates of STDs in Alaska.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said a larger discussion is needed around that
topic and that Alaska does not have set standards regarding sex
education in its schools. Given reported statistics, it is a
topic that has merit and the state should work on possibly
putting together a task force to examine how to address that
issue. He said he was unsure of the correlation between that
topic and abortion providers being in the state's schools. He
stated he has asked to see the group's curriculum, the cost, and
how many schools they are in, and his office has not received
that information. Although, he did look at some curriculum but
he does not really know what is happening in Alaska's schools to
the extent it is happening.
3:50:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that she was having difficulty
believing his testimony because, currently, any parent can go to
a school and ask to see the curriculum their child will receive,
and any parent can advise they are not comfortable with
something and pull their child out. Many parents are not doing
that and she is unsure why, if that is the existing policy and
many parents are not taking advantage of that opportunity, the
legislature has to put something in statute. Actually, she
said, it sounds like a problem from the parents Senator Dunleavy
has spoken to. She then asked how many parents that might be
out of the 130,000 plus students in Alaska, the discussion
related to one-half of one percent of parents expressing that
kind of dissatisfaction.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY asked for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked for an explanation of how many parents
out of the 130,000 plus public school students in Alaska offered
concern. She said she had not known this to be a significant
problem and that, currently, people are asking the legislators
to work on the budget. She extended that not one person has
related to her that the biggest problem facing Alaska is that a
few schools are able to get important sexuality information to
students to help address domestic violence, sexual assault, high
rates of STDs, given the highest rates of child abuse in the
country.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY responded that he has been in contact with
dozens of individuals that have expressed an issue and this bill
was introduced last year to address that issue. The legislature
began its budget issues last year, and together with the
introduction of this bill, the legislature introduced HB 44
because it felt that was an issue. There will always be several
issues, it is not just going to be the budget and, he advised
that the bills he introduces are important because they are
coming from constituents and others throughout the state.
3:53:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR commented that if it is dozens of people out
of 130,000 students and their families have a problem with
something, the discussion is then one-tenth of one percent of
the 130,000 students. She questioned whether his bill is going
in the right direction when it is [speaking to] only one-tenth
of one percent of students, and whether the legislature would
want to change the statute for that one-tenth of one percent of
the 130,000 students.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that her other question related to
other longstanding problems Alaska has and how the state would
address those without the resources. Clearly, she pointed out,
Alaska does not have enough resources and the state now has
opportunities to partner with community organizations that
provide medically accurate, scientifically accurate, culturally
appropriate, information that is absolutely essential for people
to be healthy individuals in order to have healthy communities.
She related that she cannot see, in any manner, how this bill
helps accomplish those common goals shared within the
legislature.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY clarified that he has been in discussions with
dozens of parents, he has hundreds of written communication from
parents. He said his staff met with Planned Parenthood on more
than one occasion and asked how many school districts they were
in, what type of materials were being presented, the cost, and
Planned Parenthood did not have the answers. In terms of cost,
by law, there is supposed to be a certified Type A teacher in a
classroom, only Type A teachers can teach. Therefore, a private
citizen cannot teach because it would be against the law. He
said he assumes the Type A teacher is standing there which is
cost, and the teacher in that classroom certainly could be
trained in delivering sex education. He then asked his
assistant how many staff Planned Parenthood has dedicated to
Alaska.
3:55:34 PM
KRISTIN McDONALD, Staff, Senator Mike Dunleavy, Alaska State
Legislature, responded that Planned Parenthood indicated it has
three full-time staff and one part-time staff committed to
education and providing this information to schools. She
offered that the education is not necessarily a classroom, it
could be pamphlets of information or contact with the teacher.
It is unknown how many schools or how many teachers Planned
Parenthood works with, she remarked.
3:56:08 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said that speaking as an educator for almost 30
years, he found it difficult to believe that over 100,000
students could be taught with two and one-half to three
individuals. He opined there are many unknowns as to what
Planned Parenthood's activity is and the costs.
CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification as to whether he meant the
costs of Planned Parenthood, or the costs to the school.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY noted that he would be interested in having
costs to the school and what their costs are, verified. He
reiterated that if a certified teacher is standing there, the
schools costs are already accounted for. Certainly, Planned
Parenthood should not be coming in on their own with no teacher
there, he said.
CHAIR SEATON stated for the record that he asked Planned
Parenthood to see the curriculum, and Planned Parenthood
volunteered to show the curriculum and give demonstrations to
any member of the committee if they so desired. He advised that
he looked through the curriculum, and noted that the school
district choose the portions of that curriculum it wants taught
in particular classes. He further noted that he was advised
there is always a classroom teacher in the classroom with the
students with no cost to the school. He pointed out that the
information he was given can be verified with upcoming
testimony.
3:57:45 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY, after listening to Chair Seaton, submitted
that there is no cost, there would be no cost to the school
district or Planned Parenthood.
CHAIR SEATON agreed, and said those questions will be asked of
testifiers.
CHAIR SEATON said he wanted the committee looked at this issue a
couple of other ways, such that during a meeting in the House
Education Standing Committee, Senator Dunleavy's staff indicated
that the public health nurses could take up some of the slack
and provide this information. Since public health nurses are
part of the health system, he wanted to verify how much activity
Senator Dunleavy anticipated would be taken up by public health
nurses in addition to their in the school conversations they
have, currently.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY answered that if there are two and one-half
staff members from one abortion provider for the State of
Alaska, there would probably be school nurses delivering
curriculum on sex education, and have had them for some time.
He said he anticipates that with the changes in this bill that
process wouldn't change, and would have what is already
occurring.
3:59:12 PM
CHAIR SEATON reminded him that the statement was public
regarding health nurses, and he knows that public health nurses
do go in and perform training in the schools, but what about the
statement of picking slack up. He opined that the staffers are
not the educators, they have trained the other educators that
work in the classroom, so the workforce is broader than just the
professional organization staff. He asked whether Senator
Dunleavy was looking at the number of public health nurses being
equivalent to the professional trainers that are going into the
schools now and picking up that slack, or whether he is
anticipating something else.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY deferred to his assistant.
4:00:04 PM
MS. McDONALD recalled the context of the discussion and opined
that she mentioned public health nurses are already providing
information in the schools. This was in context to a review she
performed of the standards already in place in several
districts, and that Fairbanks and Valdez in particular mentioned
public health nurses and someone they are in contract with. She
paraphrased from the Public Health Nursing website as follows:
"PHNs offer health education classes about a variety of health
related topics in communities, many in coordination with
schools." She advised that this is not something that Senator
Dunleavy' staff anticipated that public health nurses would
necessarily be picking up more of, the context of her discussion
was that teachers, public health nurses, and school nurses are
currently on state standards as resources.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether public health nurses, in their
education in the classrooms are using curricula from Planned
Parenthood, would they now no longer be able to use the
curricula and that would have to be something that would fall on
the public health department to purchase.
4:01:23 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY responded that that is what the law would call
for.
MS. McDONALD added that within her discussions with Planned
Parenthood, she understood that their curriculum can only be
presented by a Planned Parenthood educator and that is why it is
not publically available, their healthy sexuality series.
CHAIR SEATON said that Planned Parenthood does have materials it
has generated that it provides to others, and as testimony is
offered the answers will be provided.
4:01:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to Senator Dunleavy's testimony
that he had spoken with parents and Planned Parenthood, and
asked whether he had spoken with school districts as to how they
integrate Planned Parenthood into their sex education programs,
whether they are using literature, using trainers, where the
literature is from, and how it is vetted.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY related that he has had unofficial
conversations with school district board members or
superintendents, and in some cases it is hit or miss, or a
teacher or principal invites someone into the classroom in some
cases.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL surmised that this is more of an individual
teacher or principal as opposed to a districtwide policy. He
said he imagines different school districts have curriculum for
sex education or sexual health and asked whether this is
individually teacher by teacher, or what is his experience.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY answered that it is his understanding that it
varies.
MS. McDONALD opined that it does vary from school district to
school district in what their policies are. Normally, she said,
Planned Parenthood contacts a teacher and it depends on which
district it is whether it is vetted material or if they just
bring their own with them.
4:03:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the material Planned Parenthood
brings in and opined that some of it may come from the Center
for Disease Control (CDC) or other big national organizations,
and Planned Parenthood compiles and distributes the information
and makes it available to school districts. If they had
information that came from an organization such as the CDC, but
went through Planned Parenthood to get into a school, would that
be something that would be now off the list and not available if
they are just the vehicle for the information.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said he can show him what "we were shown" as
being put into the schools, and what they have is Planned
Parenthood material given to them. This discussion has been
ongoing for some time between himself and individuals and
parents, and only when it reached a certain level did he
introduce a bill. He said he wanted to be as fair as possible
to Planned Parenthood and have them tell and show him what they
are doing. Although, parents have pulled graphic material off
the website but he didn't want to go down that route. He
offered, at the next meeting, to provide materials sent to him
by others that is a little different than what he was presented.
He related that the difficulty with this is that he is not 100
percent sure because he is having a difficult time getting the
information of how many schools, and exactly what is happening.
CHAIR SEATON advised that the committee would like to see that
information.
4:05:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES surmised that some of the information he
received is from parents and not from the school, which doesn't
carry a lot of weight because she could send him anything off
the internet, and she has a hard time with that mode of
reasoning. She said she presumes that during the time he has
been working on the bill he has had conversations with the
schools, school boards, principals, superintendents, and asked
their feedback when Senator Dunleavy indicated he was concerned
about Planned Parenthood.
4:06:29 PM
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said he had not directly contacted school
boards or superintendents, this bill is a result of his own
experience with education and educators. He said he wants to go
directly to the source, Planned Parenthood, to find out exactly
what it is doing based upon what he was hearing from teachers
and parents.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ invited everyone to look at the Planned
Parenthood website, specifically the section titled "Tools for
Educators" as it does raise her eyebrows due to the materials
being graphic and going into areas that may not be appropriate
for sex education.
CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Vazquez to be sure the
conversation goes through the chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ reiterated that she is looking at the
section titled, "Tools for Educators."
4:08:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO noted that the requirement that a
certified teacher is present in the classroom during the time
the students are in the classroom, and pointed out that the
state has that expense no matter what the teacher is doing in
the classroom.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY agreed, but there are instances such as an area
of the state where a certified teacher cannot be found and
individuals can come in that have been vetted. That is on a
temporary basis, but a type A teacher is supposed to be there
teaching, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO expressed concern of opening a can of
worms that suddenly, if the state restricts itself, it is to
some degree wide open spaces, and a lot of other organizations
would love to come into Alaska's schools. The question then
arises, how much control does the legislature have over what
happens in the schools. He noted this is a hypothetical and he
is thinking well beyond what is being discussed here, but he has
grandchildren in school and there are organizations he does not
want in the school.
4:10:26 PM
CHAIR SEATON expressed his agreement, and noted that when he
visits a school, there is a large sign starting that all
visitors must check in at the office and be invited into the
school, that is the policy on the Kenai Peninsula. The
procedure is strict, doors are often locked during the off time,
and some doors have buzzers.
CHAIR SEATON asked Senator Dunleavy whether he wanted to comment
on STDs or move forward with public testimony and ask questions
of the experts.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY agreed, and commented that he would attempt to
answer any questions but he does not know the context of the
questions.
CHAIR SEATON opened invited and public testimony.
4:12:41 PM
ELISSA GRAVES, Attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom, read from
written testimony, as follows:
My name is Elissa Graves, I'm an attorney for Alliance
Defending Freedom, which is a non-profit legal
organization. I'm here today testifying about the
constitutionality of SB 89, and to address some
concerns.
First and foremost, SB 89 doesn't infringe on First
Amendment rights of abortion providers or of anyone
else. Section 5 does abridge these free speech and
associational rights. And this is because, as was
already mentioned, that a public school is not a
public forum which means that abortion providers or
any others don't have right of access for speech. I'm
unaware of absolutely no legal authority in the United
States that supports this idea that anyone who is not
a public school teacher has a right of access for
speech purposes into the public schools. So, to the
contrary school classrooms are generally non-public
and it's up to the state and the individual schools to
decide to allow -- who can come in. And, therefore,
abortion providers cannot claim a First Amendment
right in being able to speak in these schools.
Likewise, it is well settled that public schools are
given substantial deference in making curricula
decisions and it is up to the State of Alaska to be
responsible for determining the means of educating
their public school students. And, the Supreme Court
and the Ninth Circuit have both stated that both the
curriculum and the materials given to public school
students is of substantial deference to the school
itself.
I did want raise a response to something the ACLU
raised this morning about the First Amendment rights
of students, and participating in Planned Parenthood
programs outside of the school time. They talked
about something called "Teen Council" where students
meet with Planned Parenthood and they discuss sexual
issues and then they go present to their peers.
Students don't have an entitlement to present whatever
they want in a school classrooms and, furthermore,
their First Amendment rights are diminished in the
school context. This doesn't restrict the ability of
the students to associate with any abortion provider
if they desire to and; therefore, does not infringe on
their First Amendment rights.
SB 89 further does not violate the right to equal
protection, equal protection requires that ultimately
situation -- situated persons be treated alike;
however, where fundamental rights are not implicated,
such as here, the general rule is that the state need
only have a rational basis for treating similarly
situated persons differently. So, if SB 89 does treat
similarly persons differently, the state need only
have a rational reason for passing this law, and as
the bill sponsors have stated there are rational
reasons to have this law on the books and; therefore,
it would not violate equal protection.
4:15:42 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Graves to state what the rational reasons
are.
MS. GRAVES replied that under "AS 14.315" it states a public
policy that the purpose of education is to help ensure that all
students will succeed in their education and work, shape
worthwhile and satisfying lives for themselves, exemplify the
best values of society, and be effective in improving the
character and quality of the world about them. Therefore, SB 89
serves these legitimate interests by educating public school
students to become productive members of society by promoting
self-discipline and personal responsibility.
CHAIR SEATON asked how the legislation promotes personal
responsibility.
MS. GRAVES responded that SB 89 seeks to have certain providers,
for reasons she was sure the sponsor could answer, that parents
were concerned, perhaps school districts were concerned, and the
bill addresses these concerns. She stated that that qualifies
as a legitimate interest and the rational basis standard is a
very low standard in that it just has to be any classifications
drawn will be sustained if the classification is rationally
related to a legitimate interest.
4:17:11 PM
CHAIR SEATON put forth that he is still trying to get the
legitimate interest, such that the committee is interested in
lowering the rates of STDs, lowering the rates of unplanned
pregnancies, and the discussion is about free curriculum offered
at the invitation of a school where funding is not designated
for providing that alternatively. He said he would like to
understand how restricting access to that information furthers
the purpose Ms. Graves was discussing.
MS. GRAVES answered that possibly Senator Dunleavy could address
that further in that her expertise is on constitutionality. She
reiterated that a legitimate interest is a very low bar in
constitutional law and if a law has some legitimate reason for
passing, even if there are objections to it, but there are
concerns of parents as well about the education of their
children, and this addresses those concerns, she said.
4:18:24 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Graves to continue.
MS. GRAVES continued reading as follows:
And finally I just wanted to note that SB 89 does not
constitute a bill of attainder, the constitutional
prohibition on bills of attainder forbids the
legislature from imposing punishment on individuals or
organizations without a judicial trial. The likely
focus of any judicial inquiry here is gonna be on
whether or not SB 89 imposes punishment. But as I
noted that the State of Alaska has valid purposes for
this law and so it's not meant to impose punishment
for any wrongdoing by the legislature so it cannot be
a bill of attainder where it is not punitive. And, SB
89 is a common sense bill, appropriately, it restricts
access of abortion providers and is consistent with
the constitution. And that's all I have.
4:19:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noticed that her organization is based out
of the State of Texas, and asked whether this is her first
participation in a hearing related to a law in Alaska.
MS. GRAVES answered that the organization is based in Arizona
and she is in Texas, and that she had offered testimony in the
House Education Standing Committee on SB 89.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that the Alliance Defending Freedom's
mission advocates for the right to freely live out your faith.
She surmised that from the Alliance Defending Freedom's
perspective it is perfectly fine to impose its religious beliefs
on others. That is the position Ms. Graves is advocating and
she asked who funds her organization.
MS. GRAVES advised that organization is funded by private donors
and it is not in favor of imposing anyone's religious beliefs on
anyone else, but it is up to each individual state how to guide
its curriculum of its students. This would be a policy decision
on behalf of Alaska, she said.
4:20:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR argued that it is imposing its religious
beliefs on Alaska.
4:20:31 PM
MARIO BIRD, Attorney, Alaska Right to Life, said he is a he is a
product of Alaska's public schools and graduated in 2000, he is
a private attorney at the firm of Ross, Miner & Bird, he is on
the Board of Directors of the Alaska Right to Life, and is
offering testimony in his private capacity as an attorney. He
referenced the bill of attainder concerns raised by Legislative
Legal and Research Services and the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) and said that he found, conspicuously, absent was
the fact that the Alaska Supreme Court has defined attainder for
Alaska's jurisdiction under in re Ray Blodgett, 147 P.3d at 710
(2006). The Alaska Supreme Court opined that attainder existed
at common law, "it was the act of extinguishing a person's civil
rights when that person is sentenced to death or declared an
outlaw for committing a felony or treason incident to attainder
and as punishment for the crime the felon forfeited all of his
lands and chattels to the state." He explained that in re
Blodgett there was a young man who killed his father, pleaded
manslaughter, and then sought to obtain the father's
inheritance. He was prohibited from doing so by the Slayer
[Rule], but the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the Slayer [Rule]
even though Blodgett sued and claimed it was a bill of
attainder. He reiterated that he found the definition of a bill
of attainder conspicuously absent in the ACLU and the
Legislative Legal and Research Services opinions given to this
committee and to the previous committee he testified before on
SB 191.
4:22:36 PM
MR. BIRD said he found it very surprising because the Alaska
Supreme Court is quoting Black's Law Dictionary in defining what
an attainder is. Although, he noted, slightly different than
attainder is a bill of attainder which the court has not defined
in an opinion. Black's Law Dictionary and law dictionaries
elsewhere have defined it as a legislative act which inflicts
punishment on named individuals or members of an easily
ascertainable group without a judicial trial. He described this
as definitional, that is the definition of attainder in re
Bodgett and the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska, and it has
been utterly neglected thus far. He said he would leave it to
the committee to determine why, thus far, it has been neglected
in the legal testimony that has been given regarding bills of
attainder. It is a matter of relative ease for any attorney to
look at the annotated statutes under the Alaska State
Constitution and this case is listed, he noted.
4:23:46 PM
MR. BIRD continued that he agrees with Kate Glover, Legislative
Legal and Research Services memorandum, dated 4/6/16, who
pointed out that there are three elements that United States
courts have traditionally looked to in order to distinguish
bills of attainder, as follow: non-judicial punishment which was
touched on briefly by Ms. Graves; lack of judicial trial; and
specificity and identification of individuals affected by the
bill. However, another issue that has been neglected is the
burden of proof on each of those three elements to show that
legislation would be a bill of attainder. Currently, his
research disclosed the standing law of the land under Communist
Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control
Board (1961), "only the clearest proof could suffice to
establish the unconstitutionality of a statute on the grounds
that it is a bill of attainder." Suffice it to say, as United
States Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter put forward over
50 years ago, "it takes clear proof on every single element to
establish unconstitutionality," and he remarked that he does not
see that in any of the sections of SB 89. He pointed out that
the following State of Missouri and the State of Louisiana have
passed similar legislation. He advised that the State of
Missouri in 2007, stating that "no school district or charter
school or its personnel or agent shall provide abortion services
or permit a person or entity to offer, sponsor, furnish in any
manner any course of materials or instruction relating to human
sexuality or STDs if such person or entity is a provider of
abortion services." The State of Louisiana's 2014 language is,
"no employer or representative acting on behalf of an
organization or any other entity that performs elective abortion
shall engage in any of the following activities presenting or
otherwise delivering any instruction or program on health
(indisc.) including but not limited to human sexuality or family
planning ..." and so forth, he advised. To his knowledge
neither of the statutes have been challenged or overturned. He
then quoted United States Supreme Court Associate Justice
Stephen Breyer in his book titled Active Liberty, "We must be
ever on our guard lest we erect our prejudices into legal
principles." He reiterated that he does not see the legal
principles of bill of attainder addressed in those memorandums
from the (ACLU) and Legislative Legal and Research Services.
4:26:25 PM
NANCY BIENVENUE, RN, Alaska Family Council, Board Member,
discussed abortions.{ said that she is a nurse, former CEO of
CareNet Pregnancy Center of the Tanana Valley, and is an Alaska
Family Council board member. She asked the committee to explore
the Planned Parenthood website wherein nothing is found about
adoption or parenting as options for an unplanned teen
pregnancy. It is recognized that an unplanned teen pregnancy
has three options, parenting, adoption, or abortion. Planned
Parenthood discusses how safe and accessible an abortion is and
how it can be an answer to the problem. The website Abortion
Facts.com describes in detail the abortion issues that go deep
and how it can impact the emotional and physical health of a
woman or teen who chooses abortion in their current and future
life, and she said she speaks from experience. She proposed
that it is not the number of parents coming forward, but it is
the general health of Alaska's teen-agers and what they are
learning and receiving in high school. Planned Parenthood
basically marketing their services of contraception and abortion
in classrooms, she remarked. She then referred to a book titled
Blood Money: [Getting Rich Off a Woman's Right to Choose],
written by Carol Everett in the early 1970s.
CHAIR SEATON advised Ms. Bienvenue to confine her testimony to
Alaska and what is being taught in Alaska's schools, and that
she only has a few seconds left of testimony.
MS. BIENVENUE related that in Alaska, other than Planned
Parenthood, another alternative is the Step Up Now to Healthy
Relationships program in Fairbanks. Planned Parenthood is not
invited into the Fairbanks schools …
4:31:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether she was currently practicing
as a nurse and whether she is associated with any organizations
that oppose abortion.
MS. BIENVENUE responded that she is currently a register nurse
and is on the board of Alaska Family Council that promotes
family values.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR surmised that she is not associated with any
other organizations.
MS. BIENVENUE answered that she volunteers for CareNet Pregnancy
Center of the Tanana Valley as well.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to her testimony regarding the
Planned Parenthood website and clarified that he does have pages
printed from the Planned Parenthood website dedicated to an
entire adoption section.
CHAIR SEATON advised that more time will be given to invited
testifiers.
4:33:15 PM
ALISON CURRY, Staff, Planned Parenthood, Great Northwest and
Hawaiian Islands, said she is a resident of Juneau, and that she
prepared some public health statistics as well as information on
the goals of comprehensive sexual health education and its
effectiveness, with sources cited, if the committee members
would like copies. Ms. Curry read from a prepared statement as
follows:
So, we have a public health crisis here in Alaska.
Alaska leads the nation in chlamydia rates with 15 -
19 year olds contracting chlamydia at a rate more than
three times the state average, and young women ages 15
- 24 years old, more than twice as likely as men to
contract a chlamydial infection. Alaska's teen
pregnancy rate is higher than the national average and
the state pays for the majority of pregnancy costs for
teen births. Our child sexual abuse rate is six times
the national average. Our communities need us to face
these troubling facts. As a health care provider for
more than 7,500 people in Alaska annually, Planned
Parenthood is heavily invested in the health and
wellness of Alaska residents. We are also the state's
largest non-profit provider of sexual health education
and serve more than 2,000 students annually. Our
education programs are not only accepted and solicited
in Alaska and states across the country, but they are
proven to be effective as well. A 2014 study in the
Journal of School Health examined one of Planned
Parenthood's prevention programs. The results showed
that 16 percent fewer boys, and 15 percent fewer girls
had sex in the schools that used Planned Parenthood
education program versus schools that did not. And
the program is now designated as an evidence based
teen pregnancy prevention program through the Center
for Disease Control's Office of Adolescent Health
available for schools across the country.
A comprehensive review of sexual health education
programs found that of the 48 programs included in
this study, two-thirds had positive impacts on health
and behavioral outcomes. Specifically, over 60
percent of the programs reduced unprotected sex and
over 40 percent delayed the initiation of sex, reduced
the number of sexual partners, and increased condom
and contraceptive use. A Journal of Adolescent Health
study of health and behavioral outcomes in teens ages
15 - 19 found that teens who received comprehensive
sexual health education were 50 percent less likely to
experience pregnancy than those who received
abstinence only education. According to the CDC, STD
and HIV prevention programs have been found to be
particularly effective when they are delivered by
trained instructors, are age appropriate, and include
components on skill building, support of healthy
behaviors in school environments, and involve parents,
youth serving organizations, and health organizations,
and Planned Parenthood education programs are built
upon these principles.
Additionally, the Alaska Department of Health and
Social Services includes Planned Parenthood's programs
as effective local interventions to improve outcomes
related to sexual and reproductive health. The
department notes "The best way for a community to
select an intervention is to choose one of the best --
choose one that best reflects local values,
opportunities, and budget." So, removing Planned
Parenthood as an option for communities runs contrary
to what our own state's public health's experts
recommend.
The sexual health education that our students receive
in public schools today is clearly not cutting it. As
the bill sponsor stated, Alaska does not currently
have any state standards for sexual health education.
And in the 2013-2014 school year less than one-quarter
of Alaska schools taught all of the recommended HIV,
STD, and pregnancy prevention topics in required
courses. Only students in three states had access --
had less access to this information.
Planned Parenthood is a valuable and trusted community
partner that is helping fill the gap in our public
schools to give students the accurate information they
need to make smart decisions about their health. We
are proud of our curriculum because we know that it
works. We have now met twice with the bill sponsor,
Senator Dunleavy and his staff, we've met with the
chair of this committee, and have made ourselves
available to meet with any office that requests to
meet -- who requests a meeting to answer questions
about our curriculum. Planned Parenthood is committed
to improving the health of Alaskans and access to
sexual health education is one important step to
making this happen, but we cannot do this alone. So,
instead of creating more barriers to education and
limited district's options for local programing, we
should be working together to ensure that our youth
have the resources and information needed to lead
healthy and productive lives, and SB 89 does the
opposite. So I respectfully ask that you oppose this
bill.
4:38:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO referred to her statement that Alaska
has 2,000 students and opined it is 56 school districts. He
asked how many different school districts are …
MS. CURRY responded that she does not have the number of school
districts, but Planned Parenthood is in approximately 30
schools.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ offered that Alaska has 54 school
districts, and approximately 128,000 students statewide.
4:39:16 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether Representative Vazquez is suggesting
that 2,000 shouldn't be educated.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ responded that she was not suggesting
anything, she was stating a fact.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said without getting into too much detail
about the kind of education materials offered, they do include
messaging about abstinence and delay of sexual activity, and
adoption for people who would ask questions. She asked Ms.
Curry to comment.
MS. CURRY advised that one of their curriculum lessons is on
abstinence and birth control, and all of its education is taught
that abstinence is a value. Adoption is not part of the
curriculum and abortion is not part of the curriculum. She
referred to the comments made by the previous testifier, and
thanked Representative Wool for pointing out that adoption is on
Planned Parenthood's website. She pointed out that everything
in the previous testifier's testimony has absolutely nothing to
do with Planned Parenthood's curriculum and nothing to do with
this bill.
4:40:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked her to explain the mechanism when
entering a school, whether it is an invitation from a teacher,
school district, principal, school district, or all of the
above.
MS. CURRY replied that it is a combination of all of the above.
Planned Parenthood does not enter a school unless it is invited
and that could be by a school administrator, or a teacher.
Planned Parenthood follows all schools policies and protocols
for entering into the classroom. She pointed out that a teacher
is always in the classroom when a Planned Parenthood educator is
present for the entire lesson. The inviter has an opportunity
to review and choose lesson plans and tailor each curriculum for
their particular class, so what happens in each class varies
school by school, district by district to meet the needs of
those communities.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL surmised that there are three and one-half
educators on her staff.
MS. CURRY responded yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that including all of the literature,
curriculum, and material that's been introduced into different
classrooms throughout the state, what percentage is done by a
Planned Parenthood staff member and which percentage is material
Ms. Curry provides to a classroom or school.
MS. CURRY answered that she does not have a percentage number
for him, but through direct education Planned Parenthood reaches
approximately 2,000 students a year with an educator being in
the classroom. As far as additional resources being shared, the
issue of public health nurses came up during an earlier
testimony, and Planned Parenthood is often the first stop for
resources for public health nurses who are the primary sexual
health educators in rural Alaska. But, as far as quantifying
how many students they are reaching with Planned Parenthood
materials, she did not have the answer, she said.
4:43:24 PM
LACY MORAN, Alaska Education Manager, Planned Parenthood, Great
Northwest and Hawaiian Islands, said she is a resident of
Anchorage, she is testifying in opposition to SB 89. She then
read her written testimony as follow:
Planned Parenthood, as you've heard, similar to what
Alison just testified, Planned Parenthood is a -- been
a trusted provider of education materials and
resources in the State of Alaska for over 20 years.
We reach approximately 2,000 students each year in
classroom instruction, and as a member of the
education team I have provided education
presentations, resources and materials to several
communities using medically accurate, age appropriate,
and culturally sensitive, lessons. Our curriculum
focuses on healthy relationships, consent, pregnancy
and STD prevention. And to clarify, we do not teach
abortion or pregnancy options. All of our programs
are thoroughly vetted and reviewed for medical
accuracy, and we work with schools and districts to
ensure that the lessons align with their district's
curriculum standards. Additionally, these lessons
have been approved by the Office of Adolescent Health
for both medical accuracy and age appropriate
standards. Our presentations are given at no cost to
schools, and to community organizations, and we really
value being a free educational resource during tight
budget constraints.
Parents have the opportunity to opt their student out
of education presentations, or to review the curricula
with school or Planned Parenthood staff before or
during the presentations. We have always valued the
involvement of parents and caregivers, and encourage
the opportunity for conversations on sexual health to
continue at home. In fact, we have partnered with
schools and community organizations to offer parent
workshops so that these conversations will continue
outside of the classroom.
A couple of other clarifications based on further --
previous questions. We do provide -- We currently
provide sexual health education in approximately 30
schools, and that is talking about direct instruction.
And I also want to clarify that we did provide
opportunity for Senator Dunleavy, the bill sponsor, as
well as several others to review the lessons and
curriculum that we are talking about today.
Aside from being invited in to provide education
presentations in the classroom, we have a thriving
teen council peer education program both in Anchorage
and Juneau. Teen council is an opportunity for teens
to become trained on sexuality topics outside of the
school time and assist in classroom presentations.
Outside of classroom presentations, we are a resource
to several schools, districts, community
organizations, and public health nursing staff that
desire access to comprehensive and medically accurate
sexual health information. Additionally, we provide
professional development and training to school staff
and public health nursing so that Alaska's capacity to
tackle sexual health issues is increased. All of this
will be in jeopardy if Senate Bill 89 passes. Our
education department consists of trained sexual health
educators, and to clarify we do have three full time
staff, one part-time staff, as well as myself, the
education manager. All educators have a Bachelor's
Degree and many have their Masters and teaching
credentials. Once hired, educators go through a
rigorous training period on curricula, classroom
management, and a yearlong certificate program on
sexual health. We pride ourselves on being the
experts in the field of sexual health, which lends
itself well to being a resource in the academic world.
Finally, I want to reiterate that Planned Parenthood
is committed to health and wellbeing of Alaskans.
With high rates of STDs, unintended pregnancies,
domestic and sexual assault, we strive to provide
education that will positively impact Alaska for
generations to come. Thank you again for your time
and I'd be happy to take any questions.
4:47:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked which districts the 30 schools are
in.
MS. MORAN responded that the Planned Parenthood educators are
based in Juneau, Anchorage, and Kenai Peninsula, and it services
the surrounding districts. It has worked in the Mat-Su Valley,
and offers resources to several school districts across the
state. It is important to clarify that while public instruction
is part of the resource and materials it offers to schools,
districts, and public health nurses across the state. Planned
Parenthood is represented statewide but only has 3.5 staff
members so the districts are limited, she advised.
4:48:50 PM
JANE McMILLAN GINTER said she has been a resident of Juneau for
31 years and that her family benefitted greatly from a Planned
Parenthood workshop sponsored by her church, Northern Light
United Church, for parents and children. She offered that she
met with the Planned Parenthood folks beforehand and the church
decided what it wanted covered, and the parents were on board.
She stressed that this workshop changed her family's life
because it helped with the communication, especially between her
daughter (age 12 at the time) and herself. As a parent she
wasn't sure how to approach sexuality and the workshop
completely opened her eyes as a way of communicating with her
daughter and son, and they have continued to communicate. She
opined that the Planned Parenthood workshop made their
relationship very strong, and that they still talk about the
workshop to this day and how important it was to their family.
She related that she is opposed to SB 89 and encouraged everyone
to vote against it, and that she supports everything Planned
Parenthood does.
4:51:32 PM
SARAH GINTER offered similar testimony as her mother, Jane
Ginter. She pointed out that the Planned Parenthood educator
covered topics ranging from puberty to consent, from birth
control to marriage, with a special focus on the importance of
communication within families on these big topics. There was no
propaganda and the focus was never on abortion. While
discussing sex education might have been a bit embarrassing at
times for her a middle schooler, she and her mother are still
talking about this many years later. She related that it was
the catalyst to a new healthy relationship with her parents and
that she could only imagine what her life could have been like
without this relationship, or without access to this crucial
information. The key to prevention is medically accurate,
unbiased sexual health information which the highly trained
educators at Planned Parenthood excel at delivering. Everyone
has a right for knowledge about these topics, especially when
that knowledge can alter the course of lives for the better.
Sexual health education is crucial to the wellbeing and safety
of Alaskan youth, and she asked, in the best interests of
Alaskan youth, families, and communities to please oppose SB 89.
4:53:16 PM
CHRISTINA NIEMI, League of Women Voters, Alaska, advised that
the League of Women Voters strongly opposes SB 89, SB 191, and
HB 352, based on the long established League of Women Voters of
the United States position on reproductive choices, as follows:
The League of Women Voters-US, believes that the
public policy in pluralistic society must affirm the
constitutional right to privacy of the individual to
make reproductive choices.
MS. NIEMI added that the League of Women Voters' position on
health care supports a basic level of care that provides pre-
natal and reproductive health. This basic care for reproductive
health can have far reaching positive effects, including
healthier babies, stronger and more financially stable families,
and pre-natal and reproductive care 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 rate babies, STD transmission, and
cervical cancer cases, she offered. 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, she stressed.
Those who oppose the teachings provided by Title X funded
reproductive health workers should experience the classes taught
by them, and that those parents who are uncomfortable with the
science based approach to sex education can always opt out, she
further stressed. She urged the committee to vote no on SB 89.
4:56:11 PM
MELISSA ENGEL, Pastor, Douglas Community United Methodist
Church, said she is the pastor and director of the Douglas
Community United Methodist Church Cooperative Youth Group for
young people grades 6 - 12, in Douglas and Juneau. She related
that she is against SB 89 because it endangers young people,
especially those living on the margins, from receiving fact
based sexuality education. As the youth pastor, she contracts
with Planned Parenthood with whom this bill is calling an
abortion provider, but it is the health care provider for so
many men, women, and children. She offered that she views SB 89
as an attack on Planned Parenthood, a partner in her ministry.
She had teens from Planned Parenthood's teen council come in and
talk with their peers in the cooperative youth ministry here
about healthy relationships, and they had conversations that
wouldn't have happened with her. She said she wished she had
the education and opportunities teens have through the puberty
workshops and comprehensive medically accurate sex education
that Planned Parenthood provides in school, rather than the lack
of sex education she received when shown a fear based video and
given an abstinence vow to sign in the sixth grade in a public
school. Fifteen years later, through her role as a spiritual
leader she has been trained in the "Our Whole Lives" curriculum
which is a comprehensive medically accurate sex education that
is age appropriate, that also has a supplement that speaks to
one's religious and spiritual values. Come to find out, she
stated, during her recent training and through her naiveté due
to the lack of decent sexuality education, she realized that she
was not abstinent before marriage as she had believed. There
are three types of sex, she learned, but there is the myth out
there that if it's not vaginal, it doesn't count and she had to
reconcile that. She expressed that she would argue and know for
a fact through the education base of Planned Parenthood in
Juneau, that abstinence is one of the vital choices someone can
make and that it is taught. Alaskans should care about the
dangers of SB 89 because deeming sex education as one of those
things that a parent has to opt into rather than opt out of is
barring students from science based factual education,
especially the students living on the margins whose parents
might not even see the permission slip. She pointed out that
Alaska's young people have the most access to sound education at
school, knowledge about the beautifully created human bodies is
power, and it helps them to make informed decisions about their
bodies and relationships. Speaking as a pastor, she said she
knows beyond a doubt that God loves us and deems us worthy.
Whatever choice a young person makes about their body and their
health, let's support them in being informed, and teachers able
to invite those informed resources such as Planned Parenthood
into the classrooms. She asked and urged the committee to
oppose SB 89.
4:59:21 PM
[SB 89 was held over.]
4:59:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she had noticed a lot of young people
in the audience and offered that if they are unable to attend
the hearing on Tuesday on SB 89, they submit written comments to
be part of the record.
CHAIR SEATON agreed, and he noted that the committee will accept
all written testimony.
5:00:11 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 5:00 p.m.