Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/05/1997 01:05 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 5, 1997
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 37
"An Act relating to a requirement that a parent, guardian, or
custodian consent before certain minors receive an abortion;
establishing a judicial bypass procedure by which a minor may
petition a court for authorization to consent to an abortion
without consent of a parent, guardian, or custodian; amending the
definition of `abortion`; and amending Rules 40 and 79, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508, and 512.5,
Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska
Administrative Rules."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act relating to partial-birth abortions."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 37
SHORT TITLE: PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY, KOHRING, VEZEY, MULDER, Ogan,
Dyson, Martin
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 37 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 37 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 37 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/13/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/15/97 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/15/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/19/97 394 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP 2DNP
02/18/97 395 (H) DP: VEZEY, IVAN, DYSON, JAMES
02/18/97 395 (H) DNP: BERKOWITZ, ELTON
02/18/97 395 (H) 2 FNS (H.STA/COURT, H.STA/ADM)
02/18/97 395 (H) 3 ZERO FNS (H.STA/ADM, H.STA/2-DHSS)
02/19/97 395 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
02/19/97 406 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-6589
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 37.
JUDITH KOHLER, Senior Legislative Counsel
Americans United for Life
Chicago, Illinois
Address not Provided
Telephone: (312) 786-9494
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
DAVID ROGERS
Alaska Women's Lobby
Box 33930
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
JILL YRJANA, Parent
P.O. Box 911
Tok, Alaska 99780
Telephone: (907) 883-4770
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
ELIZABETH PAWUK
P.O. Box 804
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907) 772-3985
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
JOHN MARX
P.O. Box 1350
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5477
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 37.
ROSE TYONE
Box 761
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-5432
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37 and HB 65.
STEVE MAILLY
Box 2536
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-3703
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37 and HB 65.
PATRICIA HUTCHINSON
P.O. Box 233
Tok, Alaska 99780
Telephone: (907) 883-5362
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
ROBERTA FOSTER
P.O. Box 214
Naknek, Alaska 99633
Telephone: (907) 246-3439
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in favor of HB 37.
KATHERYN CARSSOW
1335 O Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-7909
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 37.
DEBRA JOSLIN
P.O. Box 377
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4565
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 37.
DAN DAVIS
P.O. Box 1285
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 37 and HB 65.
SHARON WAISANEN
35985 Pioneer Drive
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37 and HB 65
DICK WAISANEN
35985 Pioneer Drive
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37 and HB 65
SALLY APOKEDAK
HC 33 Box 3188
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 373-7845
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
ARTHUR HIPPLER, Executive Director
Alaska Right to Life
P.O. Box 873991
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-9234
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 37.
ERNIE LINE
2645 Whispering Woods
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 376-6709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
ROBERTA STEVENS
Address and phone number not provided
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
MAESHA CHAMPION-READ
1523 Early View Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 338-1714
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
JANET WALLACH
1315 Cordova #102
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-8083
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37 and HB 65.
ALICE JOHNSTONE
213 Shotgun Alley
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-3931
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
VIRGINIA PHILLIPS
404 Lake Street, Apartment 2-D
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8024
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
TERESA LUNDY
P.O. Box 2975
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 966-2204
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
BARBARA RAWALT
P.O. Box 823
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-1946
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
JOE CLAIRE MCBRIDE
P.O. Box 779
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4009
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
ROBERT HILLIKER
Mile 1378 Alaska Highway
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37; opposed HB 65.
TERESA KILLION
1585 Gonzaga Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-2318
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
RUTH EWIG
2325 30th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-5538
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
SCOTT CALDER
P.O. Box 75011
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 474-0174
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
BILLY TOIEN
4518 East 3rd Avenue, Number 3
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 248-1206
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
HUGH FLEISCHER
1401 West 11th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-2453
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
THEDA PITTMAN
4720 Eagle Number 1
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-0515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 37.
AMY SKILBRED
Alaska Civil Liberties Union
4477 Abby Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 780-4649
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
HONDA HEAD
P.O. Box 20218
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 789-9664
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 37.
NIKKI SULLIVAN
P.O. Box 20874
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-2000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
PAT DENNY
526 Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3925
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
SID HEIDERSDORF
P.O. Box 020658
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-9858
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
JOHN MONAGLE
Alaskans for Life
P.O. Box 210527
Auke Bay, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (907) 789-5910
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110610
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
TOM GORDY, Youth Minister
P.O. Box 34832
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-3953
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
ANGELA SALERNO, Executive Director
National Association of Social Workers
525 Main Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4438
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
BOB BIRD
HC 1 Box 353-1
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 776-5898
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
KIMBERLY HOOVER
P.O. Box 240156
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (907) 463-5468
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-30, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order by
Chairman Joe Green at 1:05 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Con Bunde, Brian Porter, Jeannette
James, Eric Croft and Chairman Joe Green. Representative Ethan
Berkowitz arrived and 1:07 p.m., and Representative Norman Rokeberg
arrived at 1:09 p.m.
HB 37 - PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
[Contains discussion of HB 65.]
Number 006
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN announced they would first consider HB 37, "An
Act relating to a requirement that a parent, guardian, or custodian
consent before certain minors receive an abortion; establishing a
judicial bypass procedure by which a minor may petition a court for
authorization to consent to an abortion without consent of a
parent, guardian, or custodian; amending the definition of
`abortion`; and amending Rules 40 and 79, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508, and 512.5, Alaska Rules
of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska Administrative Rules."
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members they would be working from draft
committee substitute, Version "F", dated 03/04/97.
Number 138
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, prime sponsor of HB 37, presented the
changes made in the draft committee substitute. He advised members
that the proposed legislation would require parental, or judicial
consent for a doctor to perform an abortion on a minor child.
Representative Kelly pointed out that the proposed legislation was
not about abortion, but parental rights. He added that it was a
common sense approach, and put into law what people instinctively
knew, which was that parents had the right to be involved in their
children's medical care.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members he introduced HB 37 to enable
current law to require parental consent for a minor's abortion and
make it enforceable. He noted that a parental consent law had been
on the books since 1970; however, in 1976, an attorney general's
opinion stated that it was unconstitutional without the provision
of a judicial bypass. That opinion referenced Supreme Court cases
and decisions that required a judicial bypass in any state that had
a parental consent law in order to pass constitutional muster.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that the judicial bypass
provision would enable a teenager to seek permission from a judge
as an alternative to parental consent for abortion. He noted that
the reason for parental consent was clear, and pointed out that
parents were required to provide permission prior to their child
taking an aspirin at school, permission to go on field trips, as
well as parental permission to view an R-rated film.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated that under current law, a young girl
could receive an abortion which could have the potential of being
a life threatening procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that parental involvement laws in
other states had had a positive impact. It was his belief
teenagers stood to benefit from the counsel of their parents in
what could be a very difficult time in their life. Representative
Kelly also understood that there were abusive family situations,
which was one reason for including a judicial bypass provision.
Number 391
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Representative Kelly explain the three
changes in the draft committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that on page 2, line 26, the
words "or induced" had been added. He pointed out that the
previous version made references to "woman", which was not
appropriate, as the bill addressed minors, so "woman" was changed
to "minor", throughout the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY continued, and pointed out that on page 7,
line 23, the draft committee substitute added a new subsection (n),
which clarified the appeal process. He explained that information
about filing a claim would be available at each superior court,
district court or magistrate offices throughout the state.
Representative Kelly advised members that section also stipulated
that there was no filing fee or court costs for the minor, and an
attorney would be appointed for the minor. He noted that the minor
could also request a telephonic hearing, which would address some
of the concerns regarding rural Alaska and the inability to travel
to a larger city to seek a judicial bypass. Representative Kelly
added that it would be necessary for a minor, in rural Alaska, to
travel to a larger city in order to get an abortion, as well.
Number 694
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ noted that the bill addressed the
rights of parents and asked what would happen if the parent wanted
the minor to have an abortion, but the minor wanted to have the
baby.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY felt the parent's wishes would prevail.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT pointed out that the term "unmarried" was
included in the draft committee substitute, as well as the previous
version, and questioned the intent of that word.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY believed it had to do with an emancipated
youth, adding that in order to get a marriage license, the
individual would have to be emancipated.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Dr. Judith Kohler in Chicago address the
committee on the proposed legislation.
JUDITH KOHLER, Senior Legislative Counsel, Americans United for
Life, advised members they were a not for profit, public interest
law firm that had been involved in all abortion litigation around
the country before the U.S. Supreme Court, since, and including Roe
v. Wade, in 1972. She expressed that she worked throughout the 50
states with state legislatures that were considering passing laws
relating to parental consent, such as HB 37.
MS. KOHLER advised members she would focus on the issue of
constitutionality under federal provisions, as well as to the
constitutionality of HB 37 under Alaska's State Constitution.
MS. KOHLER reiterated Representative Kelly's statement, that the
proposed legislation was not about abortion, or preventing a
woman's right to choose. Ms. Kohler pointed out that the bill
stemmed from a different line of court cases, not Roe v. Wade, or
Planned Parenthood v. Danforth. She stated that those two cases
gave a minor, or an adult, the right to have an abortion throughout
all nine months of pregnancy. Ms. Kohler advised members that the
parental involvement laws stemmed from a line of cases that started
with Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 411(1990), which was a two-
parent notice law that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 1990.
MS. KOHLER expressed that subsequent cases in the states of Ohio
and Pennsylvania affirmed the right of a state to regulate the
abortion procedure of a minor because of the state's interest in
protecting the health and safety of minor children. She pointed
out that HB 37 was consistent with the provisions in the Minnesota,
Pennsylvania and Ohio laws, which require parental consent or a
judicial bypass, in order for a minor to receive an abortion.
MS. KOHLER stated with regard to the judicial bypass procedure in
Hodgson v. Minnesota, that during the trial, on that particular
law, the evidence came in and showed that over the five year period
that the law was in effect, 3,573 requested a judicial bypass. Of
those 3,573 requests, 3,558 petitions were granted; six petitions
withdrawn and nine petitions were denied. One minor appealed her
petition, and the appeal was affirmed.
Number 1006
MS. KOHLER advised members that 34 states had parental involvement
laws, of which 27 were enforceable, with the remainder being in the
same position as Alaska. Alaska's law was unconstitutional because
it did not include a judicial bypass provision, and HB 37 would
rectify that position. She noted that with the passage of similar
laws in other states, teenage abortion rates decreased, as did teen
pregnancy rates and birth rates.
MS. KOHLER advised members that she felt HB 37 could be
successfully litigated, if enacted into law, in a court proceeding.
She pointed out that the state law in Florida had been struck
because of constitutional or privacy grounds. However, she
expressed that the state of California had upheld its parental
consent law over privacy grounds challenges. Ms. Kohler advised
members that the Alaska Supreme Court had never applied the privacy
provision to any of Alaska's abortion laws. She pointed out that
Alaska's State Constitution also protected parental rights, and
reiterated that HB 37 could be successfully litigated.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Ms. Kohler fax the remainder of her
testimony to the committee, as there were numerous members of the
public waiting to testify on the proposed legislation.
Number 1185
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Kohler to cite the
Pennsylvania case which allowed the states to include additional
provisions on an abortion proceeding.
MS. KOHLER advised members that case was entitled Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, and that decision was issued in 1992. She
explained that the decision enabled all of Pennsylvania abortion
laws to include parental consent, and a woman's right to know
legislation that required informed consent for every woman prior to
the abortion procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how many of the 34 states had
express privacy guarantees in their Constitutions.
MS. KOHLER advised members there were only five states that had
express privacy guarantees within their state Constitutions, and
only one state, Florida, had exercised that privacy provision to
strike a parental involvement law. She noted that California had
an express privacy provision also, and it upheld the parental
consent law, even over a privacy challenge.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referenced the Minnesota statute and asked
how many young women, under the age of 18, died from abortions
prior to the enactment of the statute, and how many had died
subsequent to the enactment of the statute.
MS. KOHLER advised members there was no information relating to
that in the court cases that were before the U.S. Supreme Court,
although she pointed out that members could request that
information from the State Department of Public Health in the state
of Minnesota, because they did have a reporting law in effect.
MS. KOHLER noted that Representative Berkowitz had posed several
questions in another committee, and she reiterated her previous
responses to the House Judiciary Committee. She advised members
that the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons gave the
U.S. Supreme Court information on the issue of migration. That
information reflected that migration out of the state of Minnesota,
for the purpose of receiving an abortion, was not conducted on any
significant scale. Since that time, states surrounding Minnesota
had enacted parental involvement laws. Ms. Kohler stated that the
solution to migration was not to abolish the public health
standards of stricter states, but to strengthen those standards.
She pointed out that the bill addressed the travel problem in the
state of Alaska by including a telephone provision, so it would be
unlikely that Alaska teens would migrate to Canada, or the lower
48.
Number 1379
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Kohler might address the
question posed by Representative Berkowitz in a case where a minor
did not want an abortion, but the parents wanted the child to have
an abortion.
MS. KOHLER advised members that most states had state laws that
prohibit coercion, and would certainly prohibit the coercion of a
person to have an invasive medical procedure. She felt that
situation would have to be researched under Alaska state law.
Number 1430
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that the proposed legislation did
not address that situation.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that members keep their comments to the issue
of parental consent.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the organization Ms. Kohler was
with was a parental rights group.
MS. KOHLER advised members Americans United for Life was a law firm
that assisted states in drafting laws, and assist in the defense of
those laws before either federal or state courts.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed that Ms. Kohler did not answer
his question.
MS. KOHLER, basically, reiterated her first response.
Number 1497
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked if her organization assisted in the
drafting of HB 37.
MS. KOHLER advised members that they assist in drafting model
legislation, and it was her understanding that Senator Leman and
Representative Kelly had drafted proposed legislation consistent
with the model provided by the Americans United for Life. She
pointed out that the model legislation was based upon the law that
was successfully litigated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in 1992,
as well as on the law that was enacted in Minnesota that was
affirmed in Hodgson v. Minnesota.
CHAIRMAN GREEN thanked Ms. Kohler for her testimony, adding that
the committee would appreciate receiving her written comments and
backup information.
Number 1552
DAVID ROGERS, representing the Alaska Women's Lobby read the
Lobby's prepared statement into the record as follows: "The Alaska
Women's Lobby agrees with the sponsors and supporters of this bill.
Minor's should talk to their parents before any decisions are made
about a teenage pregnancy. We are told that most do. But like it
or not, some won't. Often because they come from homes where
physical violence or emotional abuse are prevalent because their
pregnancy is the result of child sexual abuse by a family member,
a stranger or a date rape. And don't be surprised if many of these
same kids won't talk to a judge either, even if that judge is right
down the street. The court room is intimidating enough for most
adults; it can be overwhelming for teens. And, Mr. Chairman, how
can you guarantee confidentiality?
"Mr. Chairman, under this law, these adolescents, caught between
two equally unacceptable alternatives, will be at risk and in
danger, either due to delays in seeking appropriate medical advice,
or because they take things into their own hands and run away, or
risk their lives by having illegal, or self induced abortions.
This has happened in other states and will happen in Alaska. That
is quite a price to pay to send a message that most minors don't
need to hear.
"In any event, according to the Alaska Medical Association, there
is no convincing evidence that these kinds of laws will actually
get kids to talk to their parents who wouldn't otherwise. In the
words of Judge Donald Alsup [Ph], a federal district judge from
Minnesota, 'A minor's unplanned pregnancy is a crisis which is not
conducive to an attempt to build good family communication.' Nor
are we convinced that these laws will reduce abortion or birth
rates. In fact, we have statistics that suggest the opposite. So
for us, the potential and unintended harm that may result from this
legislation, clearly outweighs the potential, but unlikely good of
encouraging parental communication and lowering birth and abortion
rates. That is best handled by developing a comprehensive
prevention program which prevents the pregnancy in the first place.
"As a starting point for this discussion, we encourage you to
review Three a Day: Children Having Children in Alaska, a report
prepared by the Senate Advisory Council in 1989 for Senator Pearce.
It's important to keep in mind that parental consent is not always
required under state law for significant actions by a minor. And
what could be more appropriate for an additional exception than
decisions concerning the unique, and intensely personal experience
of pregnancy. It is particularly ironic that under this bill, a
pregnant teen must get permission to have an abortion, but will
continue to be considered mature enough to make independent
parental decisions for her newborn child.
"Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, the thousands of Alaskans
represented by the Alaska Women's Lobby oppose HB 37. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman." This ends Mr. Roger's prepared testimony which was
read into the record.
Number 1692
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referenced the statistics referred to by Mr.
Rogers relating to the Minnesota law, and asked if he had copies
available.
MR. ROGERS advised members that he could provide copies to the
committee.
Number 1752
CHAIRMAN GREEN took testimony via teleconference from Tok, Alaska,
and asked that Jill Yrjana address the committee.
JILL YRJANA, represented herself as a parent, and advised members
that having no consent took away her parental rights too. She
noted that her concern was that the judicial bypass provision, in
other states, did not reduce the number of abortions taking place.
Ms. Yrjana stated that through testimony, she understood that of
those who chose to go through the judicial bypass process, only 15
out of approximately 3000 were not granted. She stated that it
seemed to her that teenagers of abusive homes, or who did not want
to talk to their parents, could talk to a doctor who would then be
responsible for contacting DFYS, or some other organization, to
help the teen.
Number 1825
ELIZABETH PAWUK testified via teleconference from Petersburg,
Alaska, she read her statement into the record as follow: "I'd
like to take this opportunity to thank you for being able to speak
in support of HB 37. First of all, it is not the business of
government to take over the roles of parents. Parents should
provide the financial, emotional and physical care for their
children. Providing abortions without parental consent drives
another wedge between parents and civil authorities, generating
more confusion in our young over who is in charge. At the same
time, if this HB 37 is being considered, I'd also like to have you
all consider this too. I would like to encourage legislators to
include an amendment. Sadly, alternative situations do result in
which a young girl recognizes the sanctity of human life, but her
parents do not. She needs to have equal recourse if her parents
are coercing her to consent to an abortion.
"I am opposed to any and all abortions. Call it what you will,
justify it as best you can. It is, and always will be the killing
of innocent human life. Once priceless, human life in this country
now has a price. And like all items in a capitalistic society,
life is now subject to the law of supply and demand and the selfish
desires of man.
"If the medical profession of this country had had the backbone and
moral stamina it should have had, abortions would never have been
legalized. Because of the medical profession's weak and
unconscionable silence, the government of this country is being
forced to fill the void. I applaud each and every one of you pro-
life legislators. Yours is a difficult and challenging task, but
a most sacred and worthy one. I thank you a thousand times." That
concludes the prepared statement of Elizabeth Pawuk.
Number 1917
JOHN MARX testified via teleconference from Dillingham, Alaska and
was concerned as to whether the fifth business day would be enough
to hear cases, and if the judicial bypass procedure would allow a
minor to go before a judge without having their parents consulted
or notified.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that cases going before a judge would be
expedited just because of the nature of the case, and would rise to
the top of the court calendar. He thought Mr. Marx's question was
well founded, and it would be considered by committee members
during deliberation on the bill.
Number 1986
ROSE TYONE testified via teleconference from Glennallen, Alaska.
She advised members she was in support of both HB 37 and HB 65.
She stated that from an emotional standpoint, and having had an
abortion in 1967, the last 20 years had involved a lot of
suffering. Ms. Tyone noted that it took her until approximately
four years ago to realize there was such a thing as post-abortion
syndrome. She did not feel there was enough information available
to the young people relating to abortions. Ms. Tyone expressed
that now she wished she had gone to her parents and talked with
them about her dilemma.
MS. TYONE stressed the importance of educating teens about
pregnancy and abortions, and felt that pictures of the various
abortion procedures would bear heavy on a teenager's mind.
STEVE MAILLY testified via teleconference from Glennallen, Alaska,
and thank all pro-life representatives and the sponsors of HB 37
and HB 65 for introducing the legislation. He expressed that there
were citizens who felt disenfranchised because this was a nation
that endorsed murder. Mr. Mailly asked that the legislators do
everything in their power to pass both pieces of proposed
legislation. He believed in parents being wards of their children,
not the courts and not the state.
CHAIRMAN GREEN moved on to take testimony from Fairbanks, Alaska.
Number 2180
PATRICIA HUTCHINSON testified via teleconference from Fairbanks,
Alaska. She stated that she was a member of the Alaska Association
of Family and Community Education and was concerned about the
neglect of children that could occur under HB 37. Ms. Hutchinson
pointed out that as currently written, the proposed legislation
erodes the right of parental consent which had already been
established. She felt the proposed legislation made it too easy
for the court to deal irresponsibly with a child. Ms. Hutchinson
expressed that she was testifying to the proposed committee
substitute, HB 0037 (B). She referred to page 5, line 3,
subparagraph (c), which would give the court the responsibility of
parental consent. Ms. Hutchinson advised members that the proposed
legislation should be amended to give the court the responsibility
of parental observation and care of the child following the
procedure.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out to Ms. Hutchinson that the committee was
discussing Version "F", a proposed draft committee substitute of HB
37, and asked if she was referring to Sec. 18.16.030.
MS. HUTCHINSON stated that she was referring to that section. She
advised members that if the hearing required was not heard,
automatic consent would take place and she felt that language
should be struck from the bill. Ms. Hutchinson pointed out that
the state of Alaska did not consider a child of 17 years of age to
be sufficiently mature, and well enough informed to make an
intelligent decision as to whether to get a tetanus shot, have a
wart removed or drive a car or a boat.
MS. HUTCHINSON pointed out that any child who could fill out two
forms; one at the court house and one at the clinic, could subject
herself to an abrasive elected procedure. She noted that
currently, HB 37 did not address the issue of health care for
complications, or for education to modify behavior for the purpose
of preventing future pregnancies. She felt the proposed
legislation took those rights and responsibilities away from the
parents. She asked if those responsibilities were being given to
the court or to the child.
CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that the language had been drafted in that
manner because of a requirement relating to the judicial bypass
procedure.
Number 2332
ROBERTA FOSTER testified via teleconference from Naknek, Alaska.
She advised members that she approved of the passage of the
parental consent before abortion law. Ms. Foster noted that the
intent of the legislation was to strengthen the family structure,
and pointed out that to allow a minor child to receive medical
help, of any sort, from others without parental knowledge, would
not strengthen the family.
MS. FOSTER stated that with the push for a school based medical
clinic coming through Goal [Ph] 2000, the increase of pro-abortion
involvement could greatly increase the non-parental notification
unless the bill offers protection for parental rights.
MS. FOSTER advised members she would like the legislation to
include a definition for the word "informed". She felt the girl
should be informed that she, indeed, would be taking the life of an
unborn, human person. Ms. Foster advised members she strongly
endorsed the spirit of HB 37, and encouraged passage of the bill.
Because Ms. Foster would not be available to testify on HB 65, she
expressed her support of that bill as well.
Number 2430
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Ms. Foster to elaborate on her views
relating to schools and Goal 2000.
MS. FOSTER advised members that through Goal 2000, and the
possibility of other legislation at the national level, that there
would be a push for school-based clinics on the school premises.
She advised members that if the parental notification bill did not
pass, some of those school-based clinics would have the option of
recommending abortions if a teenage girl approached them for
counsel. Ms. Foster felt there could be an increase in the number
of abortions because of school-based clinics.
TAPE 97-30, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that he was not aware of any
Alaska school-based clinics who were counseling or promoting
abortion.
KATHRYN CARSSOW testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
advised members that she worked hard throughout her school years,
and was very active in extracurricular activities. Ms. Carssow
advised members she taught bible school at the Presbyterian Church,
in which she was raised. (Audio-breakup--cut-out).
MS. CARSSOW advised members that her parents were active
republicans, expressed that her mother was a warm hearted person
who she could talk to and count on for support.
MS. CARSSOW expressed that midway through her senior year in high
school she became pregnant. She stated that she knew she could
confide in her mother; however, felt it was her mistake, and her
problem. Ms. Carssow stated that she knew that as soon as she
confided in any adult, the choice of whether or not to carry out
the pregnancy would be out of her hands. She stated that HB 37
would take the decision out of the hands of the girl who was
pregnant. Because Ms. Carssow felt she could not approach anyone
with her situation, she turned to an illegal abortionist.
MS. CARSSOW advised members that her parents could have found her
lying on the floor in the hallway of their home passed out and
bleeding. Her parents would have been horrified if they had found
her unconscious. Ms. Carssow was thankful to have lived through
the ordeal. She wanted members to realize what was likely to
happen if safe and legal abortions were no longer available to
desperate teenage girls who could not get their parent's permission
to receive an abortion.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Ms. Carssow if she was aware of the judicial
bypass provision in HB 37.
MS. CARSSOW advised members she was aware of that provision;
however, as a young girl back in 1969, she would have gone with the
illegal abortion rather than go through a public process and face
a judge.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out to the LIO teleconference operator in
Anchorage that the committee was experiencing audio problems which
appeared to originate in Anchorage, and asked that they look into
the problem.
Number 200
DEBRA JOSLIN provided testimony via teleconference from Delta
Junction, Alaska. She urged passage of HB 37, adding that she was
not concerned so much with the specifics and language, but the
intent of the bill. Ms. Joslin pointed out that she was the mother
of two girls, and she would not want them to have an abortion
without the privilege of having their mother's input and counsel.
Ms. Joslin pointed out that abortion was a life-altering experience
for the girl, and a life-ending experience for the baby.
MS. JOSLIN pointed out that if parental consent was not afforded,
the teenager would proceed to abortion without any benefit of
counsel.
Number 265
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Joslin if she would give consent for
her daughter to have an abortion under any situation.
MS. JOSLIN's response was that she would not. She believed
abortion was the killing of an unborn life. Ms. Joslin confessed
that she had an abortion at the age of 18. She noted that it was
legal and very easy to get through Planned Parenthood. Ms. Joslin
explained that Planned Parenthood did not counsel her on the cons
of the procedure, only the pros. She advised members that if she
had known then, what she knew today, she would have never gotten an
abortion. The counseling she received referred to the baby as
"just a piece of tissue". Ms. Joslin advised members that it was
1976 when she received an abortion, and she was still sorry for
having the abortion, adding that she would not want her daughter to
have to go through what she had gone through.
Number 321
DAN DAVIS provided testimony via teleconference from Delta
Junction, Alaska. He advised members he supported both HB 37 and
HB 65. Mr. Davis pointed out that parents, in most cases, had the
best and greatest interest in their minor daughters, as well as
preborn children. He expressed that parents were the ones bearing
children, not the state of Alaska, or any other state or government
entity. Mr. Davis explained that parents needed to be involved in
situations such as abortions. He felt that, in most cases,
unwanted pregnancies were the result of irresponsibility, and asked
that members support both HB 37 and HB 65.
SHARON WAISANEN testified via teleconference from Kenai, Alaska.
She advised members she was the mother of three adult children, of
which two were adopted. Ms. Waisanen expressed that she was also
a retired school teacher and high school counselor. She advised
members it was amazing to her that parents felt that the state of
Alaska must legislate communication between parents and children.
Ms. Waisanen did not believe legislation would stop the act of
abortions, and did not believe it would make children communicate
more with their parents. She noted that through all the years she
worked with the school system, she worked hard at promoting
communication between parents and children. Ms. Waisanen noted
that there were many parents who did not desire communication with
their children, pointing out that the state of Alaska had the
greatest number of neglect, abuse and molestation of minors than
any other state.
MS. WAISANEN expressed that many teens did not have two parents, or
even a guardian to care for them. She was aware of teenagers
sleeping in tents, through the winter months, in the Kenai
Peninsula area whose parents had abandoned them by the time they
become sexually active.
MS. WAISANEN felt that most minors did consult with their parents.
However, she expressed that it was important to have parental
training programs because she felt that was the only way to prevent
unwanted parents and unwanted pregnancies. Ms. Waisanen advised
members it would be necessary to support those types of programs
and provide funding for them. She asked that members not waste
Alaska's money by passing anti-choice bills that might not stand up
in the court system, but rather, use the money to support education
and planned parenting. Ms. Waisanen asked that members to vote
against HB 37 and HB 65.
DICK WAISANEN testified via teleconference from Kenai, Alaska. He
advised members he also a retired high school counselor. Mr.
Waisanen pointed out that prior to his retiring, he worked with
numerous teenagers, many of whom shared both the joys and sorrows
with their parents. He expressed that he, unfortunately, worked
with many teenagers who were deathly afraid to even tell their
parents their grades were going to drop below a C because of the
possibility of physical abuse. He believed young women, with good
relationships with their parents, would seek their assistance in
the case of an unwanted pregnancy as soon as the situation became
known. Mr. Waisanen advised members that many other young women
could not seek assistance from their parents because of the real
danger of physical abuse, and were also not likely to seek or trust
the help of the judicial system.
MR. WAISANEN pointed out that to legislate mandatory consent laws
would impose a great danger on many of Alaska's young women. He
felt the state would be much better off to put funds towards better
planning within the schools and community health clinics. Mr.
Waisanen opposed both HB 37 and HB 65.
SALLY APOKEDAK testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. She
advised members she was 16 the first time she became pregnant and
approached the Planned Parenthood clinic and told them she wanted
an abortion. She expressed that she told the counselor that her
father would kill her if he knew she was pregnant. Ms. Apokedak
advised members that the counselor, rather than ask if she was
exaggerating, or attempt to find out if she had suffered violence
at her father's hand, hugged her and told her what an assured young
women she was. Ms. Apokedak explained that the counselor assured
her that she was legally an adult and her parents did not need to
be involved. Ms. Apokedak further stated that the counselor
assured her that Medicaid would pay for the abortion and made an
appointment for her with a doctor, the welfare office and a
hospital, and stressed the need to act quickly.
MS. APOKEDAK stated that three days later she was not pregnant.
The doctor sent her home to her mom and dad with a three-month
supply of birth control pills. Ms. Apokedak pointed out that she
did not give her informed consent, but deliberately remained
uninformed. She stated that if she would have been forced to face
her current wrath and weeping, there would have been no concern for
her self esteem and no stroking of her ego, that she would have
been made to feel ashamed. Ms. Apokedak advised members that she
would have had to think about where she had been, where she was
going and think about the baby's future. And that would have been
so tough that she might not have gotten pregnant, and a second
abortion the following year.
Number 659
ARTHUR HIPPLER, Executive Director, Alaska Right to Life advised
members they were a 9000 person membership organization which
supported HB 37. He pointed out, however, that it was only a first
step and could very well be stronger, and provide stronger controls
to include informed consent for the child, herself, even if she
requested judicial bypass.
MR. HIPPLER stated that he heard a statement made by a pro-abortion
state representative on the radio recently who hoped there would be
a moderate way to address the difficult question of abortion. Mr.
Hippler advised members that he was curious as to what would be a
"moderate" way of keeping a parent from preventing the murder of
their unborn grandchild.
Number 729
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what Mr. Hippler felt the ultimate goal
was.
MR. HIPPLER advised members that the ultimate goal was the
elimination of abortion, but beyond that, he felt the power of the
parent must be reinstituted to control the child.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Hippler if he had children, and if
so, was there any situation in which he would consent to his child
having an abortion.
MR. HIPPLER advised members he did have children, and would not
consent to his child having an abortion, quote: "Not while I'm
still breathing."
ERNIE LINE testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. He advised
members he was 83 years old, had been a republican all his life and
believed, implicitly, in the rights of women. Mr. Line pointed out
that women were not allowed to vote until 1920, which he felt was
too late.
MR. LINE expressed that with HB 37, he read about compelling state
interests but did not see it defined anywhere, adding that he was
not sure what a "compelling state interest" was, unless it was just
a statement made by someone, and thus it was supposed to be
accepted.
MR. LINE explained that the items under Section 1(a) were all
qualified statements; i.e., "often lack the ability; can be; are
not necessarily; parents ordinarily possess;". Mr. Line stated
that the only one of those seven items that might stand the light
of day, was number seven; "parental involvement legislation enacted
in other states has shown to have a significant effect in reducing
abortion, birth, and pregnancy rates among minors."
MR. LINE advised members that his fear that the effect, of the
proposed legislation, could well be the cause of the pregnant
woman, under 16, to seek an abortion where she should not. He
stated that as soon as legal abortion disappears from America, many
young women would be faced with the situation of seeking an illegal
abortion, as was done with one of the previous speakers who almost
died. He added that during his time, he lived through the great
depression, and pointed out that that was the time of illegal
abortions. Mr. Line expressed that many women were unable to bear
children after the illegal abortions they obtained, and many women
died because of complications resulting from the illegal abortion.
Mr. Line felt that was what would happen again if the legislature
persisted in passing laws such as HB 37. Mr. Line adamantly
opposed HB 37.
ROBERTA STEVENS testified via teleconference from Anchorage, and
advised members that it was her belief that parental consent for a
minor to have an abortion was an invasion of privacy. It appeared
to be an effort to deny the right to abortion, entirely, to minors.
Ms. Stevens stated that if a minor felt she could talk to her
parents about her decision, she would, and if not, the lines of
communication were obviously broken down and the minor would not
communicate. Ms. Stevens advised members that bringing the subject
of an unwanted pregnancy to the attention of a parent was not the
time to begin to communicate with the parents.
MS. STEVENS pointed out that it was the person carrying the fetus
whose life was most impacted by a pregnancy, not the life of the
minor's parents. She stated that if the proposed legislation
became law, it would create more problems, be unfair, and was
another example of the religious-right trying to force their belief
on others.
MS. STEVENS referenced the testimony of the women who suffered for
20 years because of post-abortion trauma, and stated she had not
heard of anyone suffering from post-birth trauma. Ms. Stevens
advised members she was a person who had been forced to breed prior
to abortion being legalized. She told members that she had
suffered from post-birth trauma, and imagined that many other
women, in her age group, had suffered for years because they were
forced to breed against their will.
MS. STEVENS requested that HB 37 not pass.
Number 1078
MAESHA CHAMPION-READ testified via teleconference from Anchorage,
Alaska. She advised members she was a mother of two, soon to be
three. Ms. Champion-Read advised members she strongly opposed HB
37. She pointed out that through her experience, as a family
therapist, you could not legislate communication, or legislate
strengthening families, as was stated in the sponsor's statement.
Ms. Champion-Read expressed that the state had no business of
invading the privacy and rights of a person whether they're
pregnant or not. [Audio breakup--fade out.] She stated that HB 37
and HB 65 involved an effort to deny a women's constitutional right
to privacy. Ms. Champion-Read felt the legislature should look
towards expending funds towards prevention, and not waste the
public's time and money on legislation that would not hold up in
court.
Number 1198
JANET WALLACH testified via teleconference from Anchorage, Alaska.
She expressed that she had previously taught school, and was also
a social worker who had worked with children for approximately 20
years. Ms. Wallach advised members she would testify against HB 37
and HB 65. She found it personally abhorrent that more than 200
years after the establishment of a democratic government, there
were people, and especially elected state representatives,
attempting to take away individual rights. [Audio--fade-out
continued.] Ms. Wallach pointed out that she cherished her
personal rights, including her right to privacy. She felt it was
unconscionable for state representatives to spend their time, and
the tax payers' money, on less than pressing issues. Ms. Wallach
advised members that chipping away at the right to abortion, for
anyone, should not be within the purview of the state. She
expressed that the issue had been resolved by the U.S. Supreme
Court, and was not one of the graver problems within communities of
the state. Ms. Wallach pointed out that in many cases, abortion
was not a first choice, but the last option to many women.
CHAIRMAN GREEN again asked that the Anchorage LIO teleconference
operator check out the equipment, as testimony was still breaking
up.
Number 1310
ALICE JOHNSTONE testified via teleconference from Sitka, Alaska.
She advised members that she was a mother, grandmother and a great-
grandmother. Ms. Johnstone agreed with the testimony of the last
four people who testified. As was with the testimony of Mr. Line,
Ms. Johnstone expressed that she also lived during the time there
were many illegal abortions that resulted in the death of the
mother. She stated that HB 37 would promote more and more illegal
abortions, and more deaths and serious injuries caused by illegal
abortions.
MS. JOHNSTONE pointed out the fact that there were two people
involved in pregnancy; a mother and a father. She advised members
that the proposed legislation did not address, or include, any
language relating to the father of the unborn child.
MS. JOHNSTONE advised members that contrary to testimony concerning
teenage birth rates following passage of parental consent bills,
that in the state of Minnesota, information she had, indicated that
teenage births increased by approximately 38 percent, rather than
decreased. Ms. Johnstone pointed out that HB 37 would not prevent
pregnancies, but simply create more unwilling teenage mothers who
might be doomed to a life with a very low income due to a lack of
education. She noted that abortion, in the early months, was safer
for a teenager than carrying her pregnancy to term. Ms. Johnstone
requested that members place a do not pass recommendation on HB 37.
Number 1417
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES thanked Mr. Johnstone for bringing up the fact
that it takes two to tango; that there was a father involved, and
appreciated that matter being brought forward.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Johnstone would send the
committee the information she had relating to the state of
Minnesota's experience of an increase in teen pregnancies.
MS. JOHNSTONE advised members she would forward that information to
the House Judiciary Committee.
VIRGINIA PHILLIPS advised members she was the National Right to
Life spokesperson for American Indians and Alaska Natives, noting
that she was one fourth Tlingit and 72 years old. She expressed
that she was in support of HB 37 because a minor did not have a
true enough judgment to make a decision regarding abortion. Ms.
Phillips questioned the motives of anyone who would influence a
minor to have an abortion without consulting their parents.
TERESA LUNDY testified via teleconference from Sitka, Alaska. She
advised members she was a medical transcriptionist and represented
the pro-life community in Sitka. Ms. Lundy advised members that
she supported HB 37, and asked how many members on the House
Judiciary Committee, or the listening public, had been personally
touched by abortion. She expressed that she had journeyed through
the abortion experience herself. Ms. Lundy noted that there were
many emotional repercussions regarding an abortion, of which the
first was the dreaded positive pregnancy test; that was followed,
shortly, by the horrible reality of having to make a decision to
keep the baby, or abort it. Ms. Lundy asked who could be trusted
to share the secret with. She noted that cash money had to be
gathered, as well as securing transportation within a very short
time in order to get an abortion.
MS. LUNDY advised members that abortion was a shameful thing that
could not be blamed on anyone but one's self. It was a lonely
journey, and during the days that follow, the woman goes through
the same hormone changes that would be experienced through a
miscarriage.
MS. LUNDY asked if that was what individuals, who opposed HB 37,
wanted for their young daughters, nieces and grand-daughters. She
expressed that young women needed parental support during that
intensely emotional and trying time, regardless of the decision to
abort or keep the child. Ms. Lundy asked that members support
passage of HB 37.
Number 1676
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated with respect to the testimony regarding
a 38 percent increase in pregnancies in the state of Minnesota,
that it was a statistical anomaly. He stated that the number of
total births and abortions decreased; however, second trimester
abortions did not drop as much. Representative Kelly stated that
as a percentage of the number of abortions conducted, that the
number would then show a rise, which was where the 38 percent came
from.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the number of pregnancies decreased
in the state of Minnesota after enacting the parental consent law.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY expressed that there were less pregnancies
after the enactment of Minnesota' parental consent law. He added
that Dr. Kohler addressed that issue in her testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he felt it was helpful to
the committee when they see what appeared to be conflicting
statistics, to make sure it was clarified with some empirical
evidence.
Number 1817
BARBARA RAWALT testified via teleconference from Delta Junction,
Alaska. She advised members she was testifying on behalf of the
Republican Party, District 35, and also as a parent and
grandparent. Ms. Rawalt urged passage of HB 37 to require parental
consent for a minor to have an abortion. She pointed out that
parents had the responsibility to guide their children, and were
required to give their consent on many more mundane matters. Ms.
Rawalt stated that, surely, a parent should be aware of a
potentially life-threatening surgical procedure, and urged passage
of HB 37.
JOE CLAIRE MCBRIDE testified via teleconference from Delta
Junction, Alaska. Ms. McBride advised members she was in support
of HB 37, as a parent, grandparent and just recently a great-
grandparent. She pointed out that she had always been involved in
the decisions of her children and urged passage of HB 37.
ROBERT HILLIKER testified via teleconference from Delta Junction,
Alaska. He advised members that, in his opinion, he did not think
the government; federal, state or local, had any businesses
meddling in the affairs of the family. Mr. Hilliker advised
members that situations should be resolved by parents, who should
have complete authority over their minor children. He expressed
that a minor should not be forced to have an abortion against her
will, even though he was against abortions of any kind.
MR. HILLIKER advised members that because he lived out in the Bush,
he might not be able to return to speak on HB 65, and pointed out
that he opposed that bill, as well. He stated that if the mother's
life was in danger, it would certainly be known before the baby was
99 percent born. Mr. Hilliker advised members that partial birth
was evil, and against all factors of morality, and in his opinion,
murder against the laws of nature of the all mighty God. He stated
that anyone with a healthy conscience, should never do, or allow
such a thing to be done.
Number 1998
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if what Mr. Hilliker was saying was that
parents should have total control over their children, unless they
would require the child to have an abortion.
MR. HILLIKER stated that was correct.
TERESA KILLION testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, Alaska.
She advised members she was testifying as a parent in support of HB
37. She stated that the bill was common sense legislation, and
reaffirmed that parents should be involved in decisions that
involve their children, adding that abortion was no light matter.
Ms. Killion asked that members pass HB 37, noting that it might not
be politically correct, or a popular subject, but it was a good
bill and felt that, she, as a parent, needed the legislation.
RUTH EWIG testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, Alaska, in
support of HB 37. She noted that she had talked to friends about
the issue and the question had been posed to her, quote: "You mean
teens get an abortion without parental knowledge or consent?"
"When was it legalized?" Ms. Ewig pointed out that even though the
law was clear on a parent's legal guardianship of a minor, that
somehow the act of abortion was taking place without the knowledge
of the parent. Ms. Ewig expressed that teens were being advised to
get abortions through the school system; undermining parents, and
directed to abortion clinics, without even the knowledge of the
parent.
MS. EWIG referenced an article in the World Magazine in August 1996
which reported that 58 sixth graders in Pennsylvania were herded
into a nurses room and told to undress for a vaginal exam. She
advised members that had been done without parental knowledge, and
since then, parents had gotten together to ensure that would not
happen to the next year's sixth graders.
MS. EWIG pointed out that during a hearing held on HB 37 by the
House State Affairs Committee, she listened to a person from Juneau
who claimed to be a victim of abusive parents when she was a
teenager, and that she would not have wanted to approach them for
the purpose of consent to abort her baby. Ms. Ewig disagreed that
legislation should be based on a few exceptions, such as that.
MS. EWIG felt the object of HB 37 was to surround the teenager with
help in the decision making process.
TAPE 97-31, SIDE A
Number 000
SCOTT CALDER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, Alaska.
He advised members that he agreed with all the reasons that had
been given in support of HB 37. Mr. Calder expressed that he
disagreed with most of the reasons provided in opposition to HB 37.
Mr. Calder stated that he would not want to live in a world where
women were forced to bear children; however, he felt the
information that had presented on the proposed legislation was
misleading.
MR. CALDER stated that the insinuation that parents possessing
medical information may be a reason for them to be involved,
completely avoided the issue of the parental moral values, and
other family considerations, which were primary to the decision
making process.
MR. CALDER pointed out that the court authorization was constructed
for potentially nothing except people allowing paperwork to pass by
without acting on it. He pointed out that he did agree with the
reasons put forth in support of HB 37; however, did not believe the
bill was accomplishing all of what the proponents were asking that
it accomplish. Mr. Calder encouraged the committee, and others, to
do more work on the proposed legislation, as he felt it was a
significant matter that needed to be addressed. He pointed out
that the proposed legislation did nothing to curtail the rampant
abuse of parental rights by the government of the state of Alaska,
as reflected in Section 18.16.030 (b)(4), which allowed for the an
untested allegation of abuse to be a reason for the minor to get an
abortion. Mr. Calder believed the bill needed to be tightened up,
and reiterated that he agreed with the reasons presented in support
of the bill, but did not feel it was strong enough.
BILLY TOIEN testified via teleconference from Anchorage, Alaska.
He advised members he was a member of the Libertarian Party, and
held the position of Nominations on the Executive Committee. He had
also been a past, and future, candidate for the state House of
Representatives.
Number 288
MR. TOIEN stated that the libertarian's position on what goes on
inside a person's body was that person's business; not a matter for
government or other persons. He expressed that more laws did not
strengthen the family. Mr. Toien advised members that libertarians
believed in self-ownership; you own yourself, you own your body and
the fruits of your labor. Mr. Toien stated that when others are
given the power to dictate a person's most personal decisions,
regarding one's own body, it devalued individual human life to the
status of chatted property.
MR. TOIEN advised members that the libertarian position opposed HB
37, and supported the individual's choice; not the choice of
others.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Toien if he felt a young teenager,
getting pregnant, was a show of responsibility.
MR. TOIEN expressed that the teen was responsible for her own
actions. He stated that it was not something that should be farmed
out to government, the police or the schools, adding that it could
not even be farmed out to other family members. Mr. Toien advised
members if the teen had a healthy relationship with her family, she
would seek guidance and counseling from them.
HUGH FLEISCHER testified via teleconference from Anchorage, Alaska.
He advised members he opposed HB 37. Mr. Fleischer felt the
committee should closely consider the testimony given by the
counselor and teacher from Kenai, Alaska. He pointed out that the
proposed legislation was contradicting itself. Under the first
section it referenced "immature minors". Mr. Fleischer asked how
mature a child parent would be. He felt it would be in the best
interest of the state of Alaska to vote against HB 37, adding that
it was a disservice to the state.
THEDA PITTMAN testified via teleconference from Anchorage, Alaska.
She pointed out that over the past two hours she had heard Ms.
Kohler speak several times, and it was her understanding that Ms.
Kohler was an attorney for a pro-life organization, not a doctor.
Ms. Pittman pointed out that Ms. Kohler cited several cases;
however, only provided the information about the cases that support
her view point.
MS. PITTMAN advised members that under the California case,
presently, the parental consent with judicial bypass case was
upheld; however, was subject to re-review by the California Supreme
Court. She pointed out that the trial court, in that case, proved
that legislation, such as HB 37, did not encourage parent-child
communication, and would not accomplish its stated purpose.
MS. PITTMAN stated that the Florida case, even though overturned,
still had a lot of information worth reading. She advised members
there was also a huge amount of information on the Minnesota case.
Ms. Pittman stated, with respect to the 38 percent figure, that the
increase in second trimester abortions meant that those young women
had to wait and had delays in their abortions. She pointed out
that it was preferable, and safer, to have an abortion at the early
stages of pregnancy, and 38 percent was an important number, and
should not be dismissed as only meaning the abortions involved
second trimester abortions.
MS. PITTMAN expressed that what the Minnesota law came down to, was
that 3500 young women had to go to court for no good reason. She
pointed out that, similarly, in another state over a period of
years, that with 14,000 cases, not one of them resulted in a woman
being turned down, and consequently, not having an abortion.
MS. PITTMAN stated that the ultimate goal of the proposed
legislation was the elimination of abortion in the state. She
suggested that if members questioned witnesses carefully, they
would find out that the ultimate goal was to ban the sale of
condoms, IUD's; methods of contraception that would prevent
unplanned pregnancies, which were the items that would really
prevent abortions.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if Representative Kelly had all the
information relating to the Minnesota case.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members he would provide that
information.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ was curious to know if anything else was
going on in Minnesota at the same time.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY could not answer that; however, pointed out
that it was a valid question, that one would have to look at
statistics within the entire environment.
Number 884
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if it was Representative Kelly's intent
that HB 37 would be the first step to pursue the subject of
pregnancy to the point of the removal of birth control devices, as
was suggested by one person who testified.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY felt that was an absurd assertion.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE's response was if HB 37 was the "camel's nose
under the tent", he would like to know.
CHAIRMAN GREEN invited Amy Skilbred to testify in Juneau.
Number 933
AMY SKILBRED, representing the Alaska Civil Liberties Union,
advised members when explicit privacy protection, Article 1,
Section 22, was added to the Alaska Constitution, no one dropped a
footnote that said this would apply to some people, but not to
others. Ms. Skilbred expressed that every Alaskan was protected by
the constitutional privacy provision, and young people also had the
right to privacy, including young women. She pointed out that a
person's right to privacy could only be denied when the government
showed a compelling state interest would be served by denying
individuals' privacy rights due everyone.
MS. SKILBRED noted that HB 37 applied to the approval for abortion,
but not to other medical services which teenagers could access on
their own. She pointed out that there was no particular state
interest that set abortion apart from those other private medical
circumstances. Ms. Skilbred advised members that the young woman
the proposed legislation sought to rein in, currently, could have
a child, could receive various kinds of medical treatment,
including birth control pills, and could relinquish a child for
adoption; all without parental consent.
MS. SKILBRED stated that an attempt to reduce the number of
abortions taking place by interfering with young women who seek an
abortion, did not constitute a state interest, much less a
compelling one. She advised members that the interference was
simply in the interest of one political view point.
MS. SKILBRED pointed out that abortion was protected throughout the
country under the federal constitution. She expressed that it was
quite a stretch to think that a state like Alaska, one of the few
that had explicit State Constitutional provisions guaranteeing
privacy rights, could assert a state interest to inhibit young
women from doing something, when the very act had been determined
by the Supreme Court to be protected under federal law.
MS. SKILBRED stated that HB 37 was pattern legislation, one of many
such bills being introduced by anti-abortion movements all over the
country. She advised members it was one of the many tactics being
used to erode abortion rights.
MS. SKILBRED advised members that HB 37 was no match for the
privacy guaranteed to young women in the Alaska Constitution, and
deserved no further hearings in the state. On behalf of the Alaska
Civil Liberties Union, Ms. Skilbred requested a do not pass
recommendation on HB 37.
Number 1131
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Ms. Skilbred to elaborate on the
medical procedures teenagers were able to receive without parental
consent.
MS. SKILBRED advised members that the use of pregnancy prevention
methods, such as pills and other sorts of contraceptives, did not
require parental consent to obtain.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE felt those types of things would be separate
from surgical procedures.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Skilbred if she was aware of
whether the issue of parental consent for abortion was discussed by
the legislature, or found in the pro and con statements that
supported the right to privacy ballot.
MS. SKILBRED could not respond to that question; however, said she
could get the information and provide members.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she strongly believed in
parental rights, no matter what it involved, and she believed in
the minority of a person until they reach the age of 18. She asked
Ms. Skilbred at what age she felt privacy was the overwhelming
determinant for a person to engage in intercourse, that would cause
pregnancy; when would the privacy issue kick in, and once that
happened, at what age was it a privacy issue. Representative James
asked what other privacy issues children faced, such as the use of
drugs.
MS. SKILBRED provided her personal opinion on the questions posed
by Representative James. She explained that she was a parent of
two children, and felt she was a good parent. It was her hope that
as her children grew older and enter their teenage years, that if
her daughter became pregnant, or her son caused someone to become
pregnant, that they would come to her, or their father, and talk
about the situation. Ms. Skilbred expressed that some children do
not always go to their parents with certain problems.
MS. SKILBRED noted that there had been testimony reflecting that
people wanted the government to step in and enforce parental
rights. She did not see the government as stepping in and
enforcing her parental rights with her children; that it was
incumbent upon her and her husband to build a family in which their
parental rights were adhered to by their children. Ms. Skilbred
stated that there was no age, or cut-off line, when it came to the
issue of when one should have the right to privacy.
Number 1450
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referenced Title 25, Section 20.025, and
stated that, basically, aside from the issue of termination of
pregnancy, it endowed a minor with the full range of the ability to
give consent on medical issues. He pointed out that the caveat was
that once the minor signed up for the medical treatment, the
provider would not be able to go after the parents for payment.
Representative Berkowitz felt that might weigh in member's
decisions at a later point.
HONDA HEAD, retired resident of Juneau, advised members that prior
to moving to Alaska she was a licensed, certified, social worker in
the state of Michigan. She noted that back in those days, she was
sorry to say, an active proponent of abortion who fought hard and
long to get abortion legalized, never believing it would have gone
as far as it had.
MS. HEAD advised members she was in support of HB 37. She
expressed that she had talked with many young ladies in Juneau who
had gone through an abortion without their parents knowing. Ms.
Head suggested that members contact the Department of Education if
they were interested in knowing how a minor accomplished that. She
pointed out that some had experienced medical problems after the
procedure, and the parents of one of the girls only found out about
the abortion when they received a bill from the clinic. Ms. Head
pointed out that the girl was shipped out of state for the
abortion, and back before she was due home from school that night.
Number 1684
NIKKI SULLIVAN testified on behalf of herself, but advised members
that in the past she had been a volunteer for crisis pregnancy, and
worked with post abortion counseling and education, with women who
had had abortions. She expressed that it was a very emotional
position working with women who had gone through the trauma of
abortion. Ms. Sullivan advised members that she had gone through
training, both in Juneau and Denver, Colorado.
MS. SULLIVAN expressed that she was in support of HB 37; however,
stated that working with women who had had abortions, and were
suffering from post abortion trauma, that she would like to see
language included that would require informing young women what
abortion was. She expressed that through working with post
abortion women, the statement she had heard over and over again
was; "I didn't know. They told me it was tissue."
MS. SULLIVAN pointed out that she had been asked a number of times
to talk with youth, both in churches and schools. She explained
that she would take a fetal model to her presentations, and the
young people were amazed at what a fetus actually looked like
inside the womb. Ms. Sullivan stressed the importance of informing
young women what was actually going on, and she felt the parent was
the best person to talk to the teens about pregnancy, and the
abortion process. Ms. Sullivan stated that the young women who
choose the judicial bypass route needed to be informed, at that
stage, as to what they were actually doing. She noted, that for
the most part, the people a teen approaches with the situation, did
not explain the repercussions of having an abortion.
MS. SULLIVAN referred to testimony relating to a court room being
intimidating, and suggested that person go to an abortion clinic
with a young women. She explained that she was pro-choice in her
late teens and early 20s, and escorted many women to abortion
clinics; she herself was a patient in an abortion clinic. Ms.
Sullivan stated that if one thought going before a judge was
intimidating, they should go into an abortion clinic, and go
through the procedure of an abortion, if they wanted to talk about
intimidation.
Number 1823
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded to a statement made by
Representative Berkowitz regarding a minor having full range of
medical consent. He pointed out that the statute included a number
of provisos, as to whether the parent needs to be contacted, and
other types of things. Representative Kelly felt it was a bit of
a mischaracterization to say a minor had full range medical
consent.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that he did indicate there
were qualifiers included in the statute; however, minors did have
the ability to make those kinds of decisions.
PAT DENNY advised members she had been a social worker for 40 years
in maternity service, family therapy, adoption cases, and child
protection and spoke in favor of HB 37. She expressed that many
times, while working with girls who were pregnant, the teen was
very reluctant to tell their parents. Ms. Denny stated that
through her experience, in states where parental consent was
required, there were very few situations where approaching the
parents did not strengthen family relationships.
MS. DENNY recognized there were dysfunctional families, but because
teenage pregnancy was such an epidemic, all sorts of families were
involved, and many would help the young teen with the situation she
had to face.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ felt pregnancy was being discussed as a
spontaneous event, and pointed out that there was a precursor that
had to occur first. He stated that it seemed to him that the
emphasis ought to be on deterring unwanted pregnancies.
MS. DENNY agreed with Representative Berkowitz statement.
Number 2013
SID HEIDERSDORF testified as a concerned citizen, and advised
members he was in support of HB 37. He noted that there had been
many heart-wrenching stories on both sides of the issue; however,
asked that members pass the proposed legislation because he felt it
was simply good public policy. Mr. Heidersdorf expressed that
there was a misconception among many people who assumed that
parents had the right to consult with their children when they have
an abortion. He pointed out that the judicial bypass provision
addressed cases where abusive and dysfunctional families prohibited
a teen from approaching her parents.
MR. HEIDERSDORF noted that there had been testimony about pregnant
girls who were willing to approach their parents with the
situation, and those who would not. He contended there was a third
group of teens in the middle; on the margins, who under the
influence of a law, would go to their parents. Mr. Heidersdorf
added that HB 37 was legislation that supported the family, and
demonstrated that the state was concerned about the structure and
integrity of the family. He expressed that those girls who
realized going to their parents was required by law, would be the
group of girls that HB 37 would provide the most help for.
JOHN MONAGLE, representing Alaskans for Life, advised members they
were in support of HB 37. He stated with respect to parents
rights, that he felt they should be addressing parents
responsibilities, and it would be hard for a parent to be
responsible if they did not know the facts.
Number 2203
DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director, Division of Public Health, Department
of Health and Social Services, felt that all would agree that the
state would like to see the numbers of abortions reduced. He
advised members that there were ways to reduce abortions through
early intervention, better education, and more opportunities for
family planning and family life interventions. Dr. Nakamura felt
another area everyone agreed with was that parents should be
involved in the affairs of their children, especially in terms of
accessing medical care.
DR. NAKAMURA pointed out that in most cases, a law was not
necessary to bring about parental involvement with their children.
He stated that in most of the studies he was aware of, determined
that approximately 60 percent of unmarried, minor pregnant women
would seek the counsel of their parents. Dr. Nakamura stated that
of those 40 percent that would not approach their parents,
approximately 20 percent would seek counsel from another
responsible adult; whether it be a teacher, a member of the clergy
or some other member of the family. He stated that the unfortunate
fact, regarding the 40 percent who would not seek parental
involvement, was that approximately one third of those teens were
in abusive family situations. Dr. Nakamura pointed out that there
were about 4 million to 5 million cases of domestic violence known
to the court systems annually, and at least half as many of those
families had children who had been abused in those homes.
DR. NAKAMURA expressed that the problem with legislation, such as
HB 37, was that it forced children of abusive families back into an
environment which was not only coercive, but a situation the child
was trying to avoid in the first place. He stated that overall,
you could not bring those children into a dysfunctional home and
hope communications would improve, and bring about a greater
parental support. Dr. Nakamura advised members that violence was
most often brought on in a dysfunctional family when it was found
out that a family member had gotten pregnant.
DR. NAKAMURA pointed out that the 38.4 percent figure had been
termed to represent abortions. He expressed that what it really
represented was the number of increased teen deliveries; birth to
teenagers increased by 38.4 percent in Minnesota. Dr. Nakamura
advised members that statistic could be found in the Ethics and
Judicial Rights Counsel for the American Medical Association. He
also pointed out that the number of abortions did decrease, in the
three states that were studied, where a parental consent law had
been implemented. However, what could be found was that there were
also a concomitant number of abortions done in the adjacent states.
Dr. Nakamura advised members they would also find that the number
of second trimester abortions increased, relative to the number of
total abortions in those states. Dr. Nakamura advised members that
all the figures he had had access to indicated that the parental
consent laws had not helped.
DR. NAKAMURA advised members that a problem he saw with the
provision of judicial bypass, was access to the judicial system in
rural areas. He also expressed that he could not envision a
situation where a youngster, in a community without even pay
phones, would be able to call up the judicial system and get the
kind of permission required in order to get an abortion.
Number 2410
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, with respect to the 40 percent reference,
that about one third of those were from abusive families who would
not want to approach their families on the subject of abortion. He
felt that possibly one half of the one third would seek a judicial
bypass, which would leave approximately five to seven percent who
would be caught up in the dilemma of having to deal with their
situation in some other manner. Chairman Green stated that if HB
37 were to pass, that that represented a fairly low percentage and
asked Dr. Nakamura to respond to that.
DR. NAKAMURA pointed out that everyone was speculating; however,
agreed with the statement made by Mr. Heidersdorf, that there was
a group that could benefit from parental involvement, but those
types of types of cases were fairly small.
TAPE 97-31, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, with respect to the increased number of
abortions taking place in adjacent states to those who had
implemented parental consent laws, if Dr. Nakamura felt that would
present a problem in the state of Alaska where, in fact, there are
no states that boarder it, like Minnesota and the other lower 48
states.
DR. NAKAMURA could not respond to that question, although pointed
out that access to an abortion in the state of Alaska was quite
difficult. He pointed out that teens, currently, had to go a
significant distance to access the procedure, although felt it was
unlikely the teen would travel to another state in order to get an
abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Dr. Nakamura what young girls did and
where they would go for help, if they had experienced abuse in the
home.
DR. NAKAMURA expressed that they would usually confront someone
they felt comfortable talking to, which could include another
child, an older child, as well as a responsible adult, such as a
teacher.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES felt if that was the case, the person that the
teen approached could lead her to the judicial bypass procedure if
she was seeking an abortion.
DR. NAKAMURA felt that was a very conceivable possibility. He
added that there was the concern of maintaining confidentiality, in
a small community, even when there was a responsible adult
involved. Dr. Nakamura pointed out that he had heard the comment,
more than once, that "the power of the parent to control their
child is a right that should be enforced", and his concern was that
the child was not being provided the right to privacy.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked at what age a child should be entitled
to the right to privacy.
DR. NAKAMURA could not answer that, pointing out that it would
depend on the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if 10 year old should be allowed the
right to privacy.
DR. NAKAMURA stated that if a 10 year old approach him, as a
physician with a problem, and he counseled and worked with the
child, that if he was really concerned, the first thing he would do
was ask the child to involve the parent or the family. However, if
there was a major barrier because of family abuse, and he knew the
child could go out and harm himself because he would not subject
himself to an abusive situation, that in a case like that, he would
listen to the child and attempt to maintain the child's privacy.
Dr. Nakamura further stated that, yes, a 10 year old, in certain
situations, did have the right to privacy.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed that the issue at hand was very
important to her, and agreed that the state could not legislate
parental behavior; however, pointed out that they could interfere
with it by putting laws on the books that allow people to go around
it, which was her biggest concern. She asked Dr. Nakamura if a
child confided in him, because they could not talk to their parents
about a serious issue, if he would consider that an abusive family
relationship, or involved a situation that needed to be reported to
the Department of Health and Social Services, as to whether or not
the child should be remaining at home.
DR. NAKAMURA felt he would need a lot more information than he
presently had in order to make that kind of judgment.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES provided a hypothetical situation of a 14 year
old girl who was pregnant and absolutely insisted she could not
tell her parents because her father would beat her, et cetera. She
asked Dr. Nakamura if he would be obligated to report the
conversation to DHSS, for investigative purposes.
DR. NAKAMURA responded that he would be required by law to report
a situation, as was presented by Representative James.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if an abortion clinic would be
responsible to report such a situation to the DHSS.
DR. NAKAMURA responded that the clinic would have to report those
types of cases to DHSS, as well.
Number 268
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked that Dr. Nakamura reiterate the number,
or percentage, of teens who would not approach their families with
an unwanted pregnancy because of abuse in the family.
DR. NAKAMURA advised members that, roughly, 60 percent of
unmarried, pregnant teenagers would seek parental consent. Of the
remaining 40 percent, one third were already living in, or exposed
to abusive family situations. He did not believe HB 37 would
result in an increase of parental involvement, in any way.
Number 380
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY felt that the discussion relating to what
would occur in rural communities was a bit of a red herring. He
pointed out that teens who did not have access to the judicial
system, could not get abortions in the rural communities either.
Representative Kelly stated that in order for those teenagers to
get an abortion, there would, most likely, be some kind of a
breach of privacy, because the those smaller communities, the
people had grown up within a 100 yards of each other, all their
lives. He noted that if minor had to go off to Anchorage, someone
would realize the teen was missing, and it would be a difficult
task for a young person to achieve, without her absence being
discovered.
TOM GORDY, representing the Juneau Christian Coalition, advised
members he had been a youth minister for the past eight years. He
did not feel the legislation was taking away the rights of children
because those rights were limited anyway. Mr. Gordy stated that
they were talking about parental rights, which was a right that had
been whittled away over a given period of time. He advised members
that he saw the family life deteriorating, across the country,
which he felt was a result of legislation that had weakened the
family, and given children the ability to accuse their parents of
certain acts, when, in fact, some accusations were totally false.
MR. GORDY informed members he was taking a group of kids to a
conference in California this summer, and that he would be required
to have a medical treatment permission form, that provided parental
consent, if medical treatment was necessary for a child. Mr. Gordy
pointed out that abortion was a medical procedure, and legislation
that he fully supported. Mr. Gordy expressed that if parents were
responsible when their child breaks the law, they should be
responsible for everything a child is involved in. He also
expressed his belief that in order for an abortion to be preformed,
both parties, child and parent, should agree.
Number 742
ANGELA SALERNO, Executive Director, National Association of Social
Workers, stated that as parental consent was being discussed, that
what was really being debated was the issue of abortion.
MS. SALERNO advised members that information, from well respected
medical associations, reflected that teenage girls were more likely
to die from child birth than from a first trimester legal abortion.
The longer a teen, or woman waits, the more dangerous abortions
become. She stated that what could result, under HB 37, was
increased risks to the young woman. Ms. Salerno advised members
that the American Medical Association made the following statement:
"Because the need for privacy may be compelling, minors may be
driven to desperate measures to maintain the confidentiality of
their pregnancies. They may run away from home, obtain back alley
abortions, or resort to self induced abortion. The desire to
maintain secrecy has been one of the leading reasons for illegal
abortion deaths since 1973."
MS. SALERNO expressed that there had been overwhelming testimony
that HB 37 was about outlawing abortion. She advised members that
they were targeting the state's most vulnerable citizens in the
debate, which she felt was something that was not a compelling
interest to the state.
Number 881
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that with the testimony presented by Ms.
Salerno, that it would appear that a teen who could have an
abortion would also have the right to drink in a bar, drive an
automobile, enlist in the service and defend the country. He asked
if Ms. Salerno agreed with that scenario.
MS. SALERNO advised members she did not think those situations were
equal to abortion, in any fashion.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that Ms. Salerno expressed that
the intent of HB 37 was about abortion; not parental rights. He
stated that if over 50 percent of adults favored abortion, he would
assume, given the normal circumstance, they would favor abortion
for the child if they thought it was appropriate in a particular
instance.
MS. SALERNO agreed with that statement.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked then, why she termed the bill as being
about abortion.
MS. SALERNO explained that she said the proposed legislation was
about abortion because she felt it was part of a larger strategy to
restrict access to abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Salerno, if she had a 14 year old
daughter with a totally unwanted pregnancy, would she allow the
child to undergo an abortion.
MS. SALERNO advised members she would, and elaborated by stating
that a parenting relationship did not begin when a child was 14
years old and found herself pregnant. She pointed out that good
parental relationships begin from day one, and would hope, in the
circumstance provided by Representative Porter, that she would have
been a good enough parent to earn the respect of her child, and to
have developed a good relationship with her child.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER felt there was a natural reluctance, on the
part of kids, to bring bad news to the parents, especially for
those who had a good relationship with their parents. He asked Ms.
Salerno if she would not want to run the risk that that could
happen, very easily, because someone else was counseling her child
and circumvented her in counseling her child.
MS. SALERNO's response was "of course". She expressed that she
would definitely want to participate in the decision; however,
would hope that her family was one that had the capacity to deal
with the situation. Ms. Salerno pointed out that she was not
worried about "her" family, or "Representative Porter's" family,
per se, but concerned about the families where the proposed
legislation would present a devastating blow, so much so that the
child could be in danger. She felt that would happen, and that
there would be families who could simply not handle the situation.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that if more people felt as Ms.
Salerno explained, that rather than the bill being a step towards
the "nose under the tent", and the actual result being that of pro-
life, he would then join in her view. However, he stressed that
that was not what HB 37 was about; it was about parental rights.
He added that he was pro-choice, supported the bill, and that it
was not addressing the specific issue of abortion.
MS. SALERNO respectfully disagreed with Representative Porter.
Number 1208
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the bill did have an abortion
connotation because the bill was entitled "Parental Rights on
Abortion", but she took offense at the implication that the bill
dealt with the right to have an abortion, because it did not. It
was a parents' rights issue. She expressed that there were a lot
of areas in the law, where the law and government had interfered
with the rights of parents. Representative James expressed, with
respect to the issue of a child's right to privacy, that she knew
what her children were doing all the time, and it was the parents
responsibility to know what their children were up to. She asked
what Ms. Salerno's response to that would be.
MS. SALERNO agreed, and stated that she felt the key term was
"responsibility", and reiterated that she was not a parent. She
did not believe that parents get rights immediately after they bear
a child. Those rights were developed, and earned, throughout the
child's life.
Number 1376
CHAIRMAN GREEN interjected because there was one additional person
who was waiting to testify from Kenai, Alaska.
Number 1376
BOB BIRD testified via teleconference from Kenai, Alaska. He
advised members he was the former President of the Alaska Right to
Life, and a teacher for the past 23 years. Mr. Bird pointed out
that over the past 10 years, numerous numbers of parents had placed
phone calls to Alaska Right to Life wondering how their child could
get an abortion without them knowing about it. He expressed that
many of those parents were pro-choice; however, did not realize the
law would permit their minor child to have an abortion.
MR. BIRD stated that he felt people possibly now realized that the
decision in Roe v. Wade actually meant abortion on demand. He
advised members that there were no rights that were absolute; all
rights had limits. Mr. Bird stated that if a person had the right
to abortion, that there should be limits; one being the limit of
the right for a minor child to get an abortion without parental
knowledge or consent. Mr. Bird pointed out that Dr. Nakamura
testified that he would decide what a child's right to privacy was.
Mr. Bird declared that doctors were not in the business of making
the rules; that was what the legislature was elected to do.
MR. BIRD referenced testimony regarding post abortion syndrome,
pointing out that it did exist, and was initially identified by the
psychology profession, not a legislature or the pro-life movement.
He emphasized that that there were psychological and psychiatric
associations who had identified post abortion syndrome as a mental
disorder that could be professionally treated.
Number 1649
KIMBERLY HOOVER, member of the Juneau Coalition for Pro-Choice,
spoke in opposition to HB 37, although indicated she would speak to
her own personal experience. She felt, that in an ideal world,
kids would talk to their parents when having to make a decision
regarding and unwanted pregnancy. Ms. Hoover stated that through
working at the AWARE Shelter, she realized how many families were
in chaos, and the kinds of families where it would not be safe for
a daughter to approach her parents in order to get consent for an
abortion.
MS. HOOVER stated that the proposed legislation was most unfair to
the girls who come from disadvantaged homes. She stated that the
teen was the one who would have to live the decision for the rest
of her life, and if she felt that by telling her parents she could
be abused, or influence her decision, forcing her to have the
child, or an abortion, that it would not be fair. The pregnant
teen was the one who would have to live the decision for the rest
of her life.
MS. HOOVER advised members that she found herself pregnant at age
20, and deciding what to do was the most horrible decision she had
to make in her life. She stated that she had the best parents in
the world, but did not want to tell them because she did not want
anyone to influence her decision because she was the one that would
have to live with it.
MS. HOOVER stated that she was also concerned that the judicial
bypass provision would not work very well because she remembered
how emotional she was at the time, and was afraid that a teenage
girl would have a very difficult time going to a judge to ask for
permission to have an abortion.
CHAIRMAN GREEN referenced previous testimony relating to the trauma
of having an abortion, and asked Ms. Hoover if she would agree with
those statements.
MS. HOOVER advised members she did not find that in her experience.
She explained that she went to the health clinic, on campus, and
did not believe the abortion procedure was as traumatic as being
required to go through the legal system.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the trauma she was speaking to was because
she would be speaking to an attorney or a judge.
MS. HOOVER advised members that it would be very scary to go before
a judge with a personal story. She expressed that it would be much
easier to go to some type of clinic, or private medical clinic,
rather than a judge.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Hoover if she would aid, and
support a teen who found herself in the situation of being pregnant
and had parents who might possibly cause harm if the teen went to
them.
MS. HOOVER advised members that she would definitely help a
teenager, that came to her, go through the legal process if HB 37
was the enacted into law; however, emphasized that not all teens
had an adult they could trust enough to go to with that particular
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Hoover if she felt that anyone in
the system, whether an AWARE shelter or some type of teen
counselors, would assist a teen because it was the law.
MS. HOOVER stated that she would hope so, but felt there would
still be some girls who would fall through the cracks who might end
up having a baby they were not able to take care for, or put off
the decision so long that it would not be safe to get an abortion.
Number 2023
CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed that he was having some difficulty
understanding how a young women would allow herself to have an
abortion, rather than have the baby and give it up for adoption.
MS. HOOVER advised members that was her hardest decision. She
stated that if someone had approached her and said they wanted the
baby, that she would want to give the baby to them. But after she
thought about it, long and hard, and decided it would be harder for
her to carry the baby, give birth, and then give the baby up, than
it was to end her pregnancy.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Ms. Hoover if she thought her decision to end
the pregnancy was easier because she did not consider what was
growing inside her as being a baby, and that if born, it would be
a baby.
MS. HOOVER responded that she did feel like she knew it was life,
or potential life, and that was why the decision was so incredibly
hard to make. She still felt it was the right decision for her.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that Ms. Hoover indicated how tormenting
it was to arrive at the decision she did at age 20, and his concern
was if she would have been capable of making the decision at age 15
without the solace of somebody else helping her.
MS. HOOVER advised members that she would definitely want someone
to help her through the situation, but someone who was
nonjudgmental, who would ultimately let her make the final
decision, because she would be the one that had to live with it.
She added that any girl who finds herself pregnant in high school
needed someone to talk to about it.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that public testimony was now closed
on HB 37.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2302
CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Committee meeting at
4:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|