Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
02/28/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB364 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 364 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 237 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 2008
1:19 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 364
"An Act relating to notice and consent for a minor's abortion;
relating to penalties for performing an abortion; relating to a
judicial bypass procedure for an abortion; relating to coercion
of a minor to have an abortion; relating to reporting of
abortions performed on minors; amending Rule 24(a), Alaska Rules
of Civil Procedure, amending Rule 220, Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure, and Rule 20, Alaska Probate Rules, relating to
judicial bypass for an abortion; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 237
"An Act authorizing the governor to remove or suspend a member
of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska for good
cause; establishing a procedure for the removal or suspension of
a regent; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 364
SHORT TITLE: NOTICE & CONSENT FOR MINOR'S ABORTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
02/13/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/08 (H) JUD, FIN
02/14/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/14/08 (H) <Above Item Removed from Agenda>
02/28/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CLOVER SIMON, MSW, Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Planned Parenthood of Alaska (PPA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364, and
responded to questions.
BRITTANY GOODNIGHT, Public Affairs Manager
Planned Parenthood of Alaska (PPA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364, and
responded to questions.
MANDY O'NEAL COLE
Douglas, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 364.
DEBBIE JOSLIN, President
Eagle Forum Alaska
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 364.
ROCKY PLOTNICK
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 364.
MAKO HAGGERTY
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
JIM MINNERY, President
Alaska Family Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 364.
JOYCE E. BAMBERGER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
DAVID BRONSON, Treasurer
Alaska Family Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 364.
AMY CHRISTIANSEN, R.N.
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
REV ORION
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
JOELLE HALL
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
ANN LINDSLEY
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:19:31 PM. Representatives Samuels, Lynn,
Holmes, Gruenberg, Dahlstrom, Coghill, and Ramras were present
at the call to order. Representative Gatto was also in
attendance.
HB 364 - NOTICE & CONSENT FOR MINOR'S ABORTION
1:21:12 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 364, "An Act relating to notice and consent for a
minor's abortion; relating to penalties for performing an
abortion; relating to a judicial bypass procedure for an
abortion; relating to coercion of a minor to have an abortion;
relating to reporting of abortions performed on minors; amending
Rule 24(a), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, amending Rule 220,
Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Rule 20, Alaska Probate
Rules, relating to judicial bypass for an abortion; and
providing for an effective date."
[Following was a brief discussion regarding how the committee
would be proceeding.]
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that there are times when the legislative
branch of government disagrees with the judicial branch of
government, and expressed his hope that when HB 364 moves from
committee it will be narrowly crafted.
1:27:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the sponsor of HB 364,
relayed that the legislature, back in 1996, passed "the parental
consent law," which was brought to court in 1997. He offered
his understanding that that law said that parents "have a right
to be involved in the ... consent of those minor's who find
[themselves] pregnant and could get an abortion." He indicated
that the [U.S. Supreme Court], in a case occurring around that
time, acknowledged that if a minor has "bad-acting parents," one
can't simply tell that minor, "Go to your parents." He then
mentioned a procedure known as "judicial bypass." He said he
disagrees with the Alaska Supreme Court's 2007 decision in State
v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska that [the aforementioned law] is
unconstitutional [under the Alaska State Constitution's right-
of-privacy provision], and agrees with the dissenting opinion.
He quoted the following from that dissenting opinion: "In sum,
the norm in American, and Alaskan, life and law is that parents
are a child's first and most important resource for assistance
in decision-making."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that the court's
ruling in Planned Parenthood of Alaska forbids parents "to have
consent given when their minor daughter is found pregnant - ...
they are forbidden by the constitution to give consent or be
aware and be involved in that discussion." He said he finds
that to be so unconscionable that he'd developed a
constitutional amendment "to just overturn the whole thing."
However, something must still be done to address situations in
which a minor child has "bad-acting parents" and in which the
minor is almost an adult. He pointed out that "whether it's for
marriage, driver's license, tattoos, piercings, we still are
requiring consent by the parent" because it has been recognized
by [the court] that parents have that right. He said:
Having said that, how to respond to a court that gave
some ... reasoning, if you will, that the State didn't
show a compelling-enough interest to be involved --
they found that there was not enough state-compelling
interest that the parent had some right to choice in
this matter, or right to ... consent."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that the legislature needs to
"rise to the challenge" of the Alaska Supreme Court. He
predicted that members will hear debate regarding "how this is
unconstitutional," adding that he would say that "the
constitution that they're using was stretched beyond what I
think is good limits with the decision that came down over this
parental consent issue." He went on to say:
However, I was willing to take some of their counsel
and begin to talk about when a child can go to a
doctor and get the necessary judgment, if you will,
that the abortion is necessary, and even to a relative
that is responsible, or to a parent or guardian or a
state agency, and make that appeal - and if they feel
they're still being held back, that they get to appeal
to a court. And knowing full well ... that there are
many advocates out there, in the "planned parenthood
area," or like organizations, I should say, who will
take a youngster and take them by the hand and lead
them either through the court or to an abortion
clinic, ... all without the knowledge of the parent or
the consent of the parent.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL continued:
And so, to me, if you have a bad-acting parent, there
might be avenues and reasons to do that. But when you
have a responsible parent, to say they have no right
to know is just too egregious for me -- and nor a
right to consent. So in this bill we'll talk about
notice and consent in several places. ... Also ...,
outside of what we had previously in law, we're going
to now allow a doctor to, ... by their medical
judgment, certify that this youngster, for health
reasons, can go ahead and get that abortion. [In]
many places in this bill, I'm making concessions to
say this could, in the realm of possibility, be; even
though I so disagree with abortion, I still think that
the choice that they have given to that youngster
should be preserved, but there needs to be responsible
people along the way. And when parents are acting
responsibly, to forbid them in that discussion or
consent is just unconscionable to me.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that [in Planned Parenthood of
Alaska, the court recognized the State's assertion that] a
parental consent law works to advance two interrelated
interests: protecting minors from their own immaturity and
aiding parents in fulfilling their parental responsibilities.
He went on to explain that HB 364 contains a provision
prohibiting parents from coercing a pregnant minor to have an
abortion. He said he understands the difference between
responsible parents and irresponsible parents, and understands
that youngsters are progressing in their levels of maturity and
responsibility, but thinks it is wrong to allow minors to make
their own decision about whether to have an abortion. He
offered his belief that Alaska's "existing law fits well within
the realm of a judicial bypass and exceptions for students or
youngsters - minors."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that the Alaska Supreme Court went
beyond the U.S. Supreme court and "took the parents totally out
of the equation," but that HB 364 provides a way to get parents
involved, gives them choices, and makes them accountable for
their choices. Noting that he'd just received a memorandum from
Legislative Legal and Research Services dated February 27, 2008,
he remarked that he sometimes disagrees with legislative
counsel.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding how the committee
would be proceeding.]
1:42:45 PM
CLOVER SIMON, MSW, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Planned
Parenthood of Alaska (PPA), after noting that she is a
"master's-level social worker" and has worked with "youth at
risk" for five years before accepting her current position,
relayed that she would be testifying against HB 364. She said
she has several concerns about the bill, and surmised that the
bottom line is that everyone agrees that parents need to be
talking to their teenagers about "these important decisions" -
not only about the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy, but,
more importantly, also about how to prevent that pregnancy to
begin with. She added: I don't know that it's necessarily our
job to tell parents how to do that, or force them to do it, or
make them do it." She indicated that her testimony would cover
two topics: one, the problems she sees with HB 364 in general;
and two, some possible solutions for coming to an agreement
about ensuring that parents are involved with their teenagers'
decisions, and some of what's been seen at PPA in terms of the
reality of parental involvement.
MS. SIMON, with regard to the first topic, characterized HB 364
as one of the harshest parental consent bills in the country;
the bill combines two separate burdens - notice, and consent -
but is a little unclear with regard to how those two aspects
will work together, and so it would be helpful to have some
clarification on [that point]. She said she believes that HB
364 is unconstitutional, based on the Alaska Supreme Court's
decision in Planned Parenthood of Alaska, but does understand
that the sponsor disagrees with that point. House Bill 364 also
creates a system of notification with the physician being the
sole person responsible for that notification, and yet it's not
very feasible to expect that of someone running a medical
clinic. "We pay our physicians a lot of money, and it isn't to
spend time calling parents repeatedly trying to track them
down," she added; therefore, it would be [better to allow
either] the physician or someone he/she designates to be
responsible for making those notification calls, because it's
really important for physicians to be able to provide good,
quality medical care and yet the bill's current notification
provision will get in the way of physicians being able to do
that.
MS. SIMON next noted that HB 364 doesn't have a mechanism in
place to guarantee the minor's confidentiality while she is
going through the judicial bypass process. Many states have
included in their parental consent laws provisions to ensure
that the minor's records will be destroyed after a certain
period of time, or provisions to protect the minor as she goes
through the judicial bypass process. Neither does the bill
indicate that a minor will be assigned a guardian ad litem
(GAL), or anyone else, to walk her through the [judicial bypass]
process, which can be very complicated; furthermore, rural
Alaska can present special circumstances in that a pregnant
minor living in rural Alaska would have to travel to an urban
area to go through the process, and so it is important to
include some safeguards for those girls. She said she
appreciates that the bill includes a provision allowing a
pregnant minor to get an excuse from school; however, that
provision doesn't in any way protect the minor's confidentiality
from anyone working at the school, including other students who
might be working in the school's office. Therefore that issue
should be looked at as well.
1:45:58 PM
MS. SIMON opined that in general, HB 364 serves to delay the
process for a young person who's chosen to have an abortion.
Teenagers are less likely to seek medical care in a rapid way,
and so this added delay could serve to increase the numbers of
second trimester abortions being performed on young people, and
that isn't something which anybody wants. Furthermore, because
a second trimester abortion is not allowed as an elective
procedure in Alaska, more minors will have to be flown out of
state to undergo that procedure. Also of concern, she
indicated, is the bill's provision requiring documentation from
the adult proving his/her relationship with the minor; this
provision is onerous and will further delay the minor in getting
necessary health care.
MS. SIMON pointed out that most medical providers don't support
parental consent; this information comes from the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the American Medical
Association (AMA). She offered to provide members with direct
quotes from those organizations on this issue. The important
point, she went on to say, is that the focus should be on the
prevention of unplanned pregnancies rather than on the
consequences of those unplanned pregnancies. Strides should
also be made to provide young people and their parents with
access to necessary information, both so that parents can
educate their children and so that teenagers have the tools they
need to make really healthy decisions - whether they are
choosing to abstain from sexual activity or, when they do become
sexually active, to have the means and tools to prevent
unplanned pregnancy.
MS. SIMON remarked that the bottom line is that HB 364 will not
help parents talk to their teenagers; legislating it isn't going
to increase parental communication. And so although she fully
agrees that parents are the first and foremost important people
to decide on what happens with their children, she remarked,
this is not the proper legislation to achieve that goal. In all
reality, she pointed out, when PPA does see young women in its
clinics seeking abortion services, they are coming in with their
parents. She elaborated:
If you average out the data for the last two years,
and even since 2004, when Planned Parenthood [of
Alaska] began providing abortion services, we average
about two young women a year who do not come with a
parent. The time that we see the most parents in our
clinic is on the day that we're providing abortions,
and that's really unfortunate. I would wish that ...
the parents would be coming with their teens to get
the birth control in the first place.
1:48:42 PM
MS. SIMON, in response to questions, said that PPA provides
abortions in two of the clinics that it operates; one of those
clinics is in Anchorage and the other is in Fairbanks. She
added that PPA provided services to 2,000 teenagers for
pregnancy prevention and family planning at both of those
clinics as well.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that Ms. Simon had indicated earlier to him
that "this" affects two teenagers per year.
MS. SIMON pointed out that those are just numbers from PPA's
clinics, that PPA is not the only provider of abortion services
in Alaska, and that not every provider keeps such data.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that regardless that PPA has only
[had an average of] two minors per year getting an abortion
without parental involvement, "this" affects every parent of a
minor child in Alaska.
MS. SIMON concurred, but pointed out that what PPA sees more
often in its clinics are parents bringing their teenager in for
abortion services, but then once the teenager is taken into a
room and counseled by PPA staff, she then changes her mind and
decides not to have the abortion, and staff are left facing very
angry parents. Nonetheless, when a teenager changes her mind
about having an abortion, PPA simply honors her choice to
continue with her pregnancy and refers her for prenatal care and
other programs - such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) - that will help
her be healthy. "So it really is important that young people
have good and appropriate health care, and I think that's the
bottom line here," she added.
MS. SIMON, in response to another question, explained that PPA
basically operates as a medical facility in Alaska but also
addresses issues of public policy, so when PPA feels that a law
is unconstitutional or will infringe on the rights of teenagers
or women in general, PPA will facilitate bringing a case before
the courts.
1:51:25 PM
BRITTANY GOODNIGHT, Public Affairs Manager, Planned Parenthood
of Alaska (PPA), added that PPA is a small, nonprofit
organization with a staff of five or six who undertake many
tasks such as performing administrative duties, and providing
legislative testimony, community outreach, and education.
MS. SIMON noted that PPA doesn't employ any lawyers.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how much public funding PPA
receives.
MS. SIMON explained that PPA doesn't receive any state or
federal funding for its Anchorage or Fairbanks clinics, but is a
"Title X grantee" for its Sitka and Soldotna sites which offer,
specifically, family planning services. The Title X funding is
federal funding and ensures that women can get access to birth
control and pelvic exams - pap smears - regardless of their
income. In response to a question, she clarified that Title X
is not Medicaid - it is separate funding - and that PPA does not
receive any of its Title X grants directly from the federal
government.
MS. GOODNIGHT noted that she was born and raised in Chugiak and
graduated from Chugiak High School. She said that as a young
person who grew up in a more rural part of Alaska, she would be
speaking in opposition to HB 364. She went on to say:
As a child and as a teen, my parents were fabulous
communicators. Like most parents, they wanted me to
be healthy, make responsible decisions, and stay safe.
Early on in my life, they talked to me about sex,
healthy relationships, drugs, doing my homework, and
helping out with chores. And, like most kids, I
thrived in that environment - I got good grades and I
prepared to go to college. But even with an open,
loving relationship with my parents, there were still
some things I was just not going to talk to them
about. You see, parents want their teens to be
responsible; they ... want to protect their teens'
wellbeing and their safety. Like most Alaskans, I
believe in family values; I have a strong sense of
family and community that my parents have instilled in
me. Parents do have needs and they certainly do have
rights, but what we're talking about here today, on
balance, is a teen's welfare.
I understand where parents and this committee might
feel like this bill could help. This bill has an
important, central intent - parent-teen communication
- but in reality it will not have the desired effect.
We have to realize what teens out there are facing in
the real world, and what this bill will actually do.
In Alaska, and what we see in our clinics, is that
teens are overwhelming involving their parents in
their reproductive health, including decisions to
terminate a pregnancy. The group that this bill will
affect, however, are teens that don't want to involve
parents - for very good reasons. We need to be real
about this bill and its implications. No law can
mandate family communication, and not every child
comes from a loving home with healthy relationships.
Some pregnant minors face rape, violence, or incest in
their homes. These teens can't go to their parents,
and while at first glance this bill might look like it
tries to aid these minors, when you investigate
further and read between the lines, you see that those
girls must prove their abuse and then go through the
courts to get the health care that they seek. For
girls who are afraid to report molestation by a family
member, this bill would create an almost
insurmountable obstacle. These girls may even
consider more extreme, dangerous measures if forced to
notify their parents, such as running away - heading
for other states without parental notification laws -
or taking matters into their own hands.
MS. GOODNIGHT continued:
The notion that these teens can go to a judge simply
causes delays when time is of the essence in a
pregnancy, particularly when we're talking about teen
health care. Delays of days or a week can force teens
to bear children they are not prepared to take care
of, or turn an early-stage abortion into a second
trimester abortion. No one here should want that. I
don't believe anyone here does. That's why the
American Medical Association, the Society for
Adolescent Medicine, [the] American Public Health
Association, the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and
other health-professional organizations have opposed
parental notification requirements.
I believe that House Bill 364 will have disastrous
consequences for the unfortunate few girls it affects
each year. In the best of worlds, families would
openly discuss everything - from money to homework to
sex - and parents and teens would always be truthful
and honest with one another. Although we cannot
impose this type of trusting, supportive, parent-teen
relationship, I think the intent of HB 364 is right
and good in that we all want parents and teens to be
communicating - that's why we're here today. We all
want to help the teens in our community be healthy and
be safe and make responsible decisions, ... and we all
want to reduce unintended pregnancies in Alaska. ...
MS. GOODNIGHT concluded:
This is where I think we can find some much-needed
common ground - all of us in the room - between
Planned Parenthood [of Alaska], the [House Judiciary
Standing Committee], Representative Coghill, [and] the
entire legislature; this is the time where we need to
find this much-needed common ground. We need to work
on a comprehensive bill that focuses on prevention,
using the same good intentions of House Bill 364 but
without the negative consequences for Alaska's teens.
We need to ensure that our youth are getting
comprehensive, medically-accurate sexuality education
that includes abstinence, of course, but also methods
of contraception and information about sexually-
transmitted infections; that our youth have access to
unbiased and medically-accurate counseling and, first
of all, good medical care that's accessible,
affordable, or free; and that our youth have
widespread access to affordable birth control,
especially in rural areas like my home town of
Chugiak.
We need parents to initiate these discussions. We
need to encourage them to talk to their kids about sex
and sexual health early on. We should be working
together on this kind of prevention legislation.
Instead of targeting those few unfortunate teens who
have already been pregnant and are pregnant - as House
Bill 364 does - we should be focused on helping them
make safe and healthy choices early on, before sex is
even a thought - before. While we may have missed the
cutoff date for new bills this session, this truly
could be our opportunity to work together and tackle
these challenges for the 2008-2009 legislature. I
look forward to working with all of you, thank you so
much.
MS. GOODNIGHT, in response to a question, remarked that abortion
is an aspect of reproductive health care.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM sought clarification that medical
providers don't support parental consent [legislation].
MS. SIMON confirmed that point, and agreed to provide
documentation.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked how often the boy/man who gets
the teenager pregnant, and/or his parents, becomes involved in
the pregnant teenager's situation.
MS. SIMON said that PPA sees a lot of different family
structures among the teenagers that access PPA services. She
elaborated:
We see everything from teens being brought in by their
parents to teens being brought in by the grandparents,
teens sometimes being brought in by a caseworker,
teens being brought in with their parents and the
boyfriend's parents and the boyfriend's grandparents.
... We really see a tremendous amount of family
involvement around this issue. We also see teens,
when they do choose to continue with the pregnancy and
were initially there for the abortion, tell us openly
that they're going to move out of their home and into
someone else's home who has welcomed them. And so ...
all of those things go into a teen making her final
decision ....
2:07:56 PM
MS. SIMON, in response to questions, explained that PPA serves
anyone that comes into its clinics, and attempts to provide age-
appropriate care; that most of PPA's clients are between the
ages of 18 and 34; that of those that come into PPA's Anchorage
clinic, only 2-4 percent are under the age of 18; and that in
terms of brain chemistry and how young people make decisions and
their critical-thinking skills at different ages, a tremendous
amount of research has been conducted over the last few years,
and so the committee may wish to seek such information from
someone specifically versed in that topic. On the topics of sex
education and behavior change/education and risk reduction, she
pointed out that when young people are provided with
information, it empowers them to keep their bodies safer and to
protect themselves. She added:
So when we talk to teens about both abstinence and
birth control, we're not encouraging them to go out
and have sex 'just make sure you take your pill';
we're really giving them the opportunity to protect
themselves through their whole lifespan. And when
given that opportunity, the studies are very clear and
do show that teens do make good choices when they're
given all the information.
MS. SIMON, in response to further questions, explained that the
youngest teenager PPA provided services to last year was 14, and
- with regard to teenagers who would be affected by HB 364 - PPA
served 2,000 teenagers between the ages of 14 and 16 in
Anchorage and Fairbanks.
2:10:36 PM
MS. GOODNIGHT pointed out that even now, without either a
parental consent or parental notification law in place, parents,
overwhelmingly, are involved when their teenager comes into a
PPA clinic to have an abortion. Generally speaking, when
teenagers don't bring a parent in with them, it is often because
doing so would endanger their health and safety, either because
they are victims of some form of abuse or are threatened with
abuse and so cannot notify or obtain their parents' consent.
MS. SIMON, in response to a question, relayed that she would
provide the committee with information regarding the age of
PPA's youngest client, but noted that she has seen some very
young girls being brought in by their parents to start the
vaccine series against genital human papillomavirus (HPV), and
reiterated that the youngest girl to come in this year for
family planning services was age 14. In response to a further
question, she explained that teenagers [who come into PPA for
services] know when they are pregnant - they know that they've
missed a period and that there's something going on. They come
to PPA either after already having done a home pregnancy test,
or to request a pregnancy test in order to confirm that they are
pregnant. Teenagers are very savvy, she added; they get a lot
of information off the Internet, which would not be her first
choice as a source for information, and are pretty informed for
the most part.
MS. SIMON went on to say:
And we do spend a lot of time educating young women
about how to prevent future pregnancies and what they
need to do to protect their sexual health in general
as part of their visit. And a main part of our visit
[consists of] ... just talking to them about parental
involvement. Obviously, if we see a teen coming into
our clinic who is requesting an abortion, we really
encourage them and ... spend extra time with them
ensuring that they do have someone coming in with
them, and hopefully it is one of their parents.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether abstinence is discussed
as a method of pregnancy prevention.
MS. SIMON said, "Definitely."
MS. GOODNIGHT added that that's the first thing that's always
discussed, including the information that if it's practiced
properly - assuming that everyone knows that true abstinence
really means no contact, no touching - and is used 100 percent
of the time, it's failsafe.
2:14:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned what type of information PPA
provides someone seeking an abortion.
MS. SIMON said that PPA provides all women who come in seeking
an abortion with explicit details about the abortion procedure
and the risks - both before and afterwards - about all their
other options such as adoption and/or continuing with the
pregnancy, and with counseling services - either before or after
the termination appointment. Some women come into a PPA clinic
but they haven't made up their minds, and so PPA staff spend a
significant amount of time helping them explore the realities of
their lives. She added, "Obviously I would never presume to be
able to make those decisions for women, so it's really important
that we give them very unbiased information so they can make
those choices for themselves."
2:16:33 PM
MS. GOODNIGHT, in response to questions, said that one of her
chief concerns regarding the judicial bypass procedure "as it
stands" is that there is no explicit mention of confidentiality.
In researching this issue, she relayed, she found that the 13
other states that have parental notification laws explicitly
state the measures that must be taken to ensure that the
teenager's confidentiality is protected: in many states, an
alias must be used in the file; the majority of states require
that the proceedings be closed and confidential; one state
requires that the files be destroyed after a year to ensure that
the teenagers' confidentiality be protected.
MS. GOODNIGHT said she is also concerned about the wording of
the provision in the bill that says a minor [may request the
court to provide her with] permission to leave school to seek
[judicial bypass for] an abortion, because there are students
working in the school's offices and so the issue will become one
of who gets to know that the minor has permission to be absent
and for what reason. Even without stating specifically why the
minor is being excused, everyone will know that she is being
excused for "that reason." She urged the committee, therefore,
to be very careful about the phrasing of that provision.
Another concern she has is about the wording of the [provision
that says a judicial bypass procedure is available to a minor
who is being abused], because the minor must prove to the court
that she is being abused. For example, if a girl is sexually
molested by her father and becomes pregnant and then seeks an
abortion, would she be able to speak about that molestation and
admit to being molested to a police officer and the courts? And
if she is unable to do so, she wouldn't be able to get the
medical care that she desires. Furthermore, the bill is unclear
with regard to who would assist the minor as she attempts to go
through the judicial bypass procedure.
MS. GOODNIGHT also pointed out that for a teenager seeking
medical care, any delay creates many more hurdles, and if a
teenager has decided to have an abortion, but has then been
delayed by at least another week, she may simply reject the
proposed system and take matters into her own hands.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how PPA, when counseling a minor,
refers to what will be aborted.
MS. SIMON said that PPA uses the medical terminology of "fetus."
She added that all PPA's clients are referred to the "informed-
consent" web site as mandated by statute, and this web site goes
into much more detail with regard to what a fetus is.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is concerned about the right to
counsel, and noted that AS 18.16.030(d) provides that if the
complainant has not retained an attorney, the court shall
appoint an attorney to represent the complainant, and that AS
18.16.030(n) says that the forms provided to the minor seeking
judicial bypass must state that an attorney will be appointed to
represent the minor if she does not retain an attorney. He
asked whether petitioners for a judicial bypass are made aware,
aside from information provided in some handout, that if they
don't have an attorney and can't afford one, one will be
provided without cost.
MS. SIMON said that PPA has never dealt with the judicial bypass
procedure in practice, and so she is not sure how that would be
handled.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that right now,
"the responsibility falls between whoever's counseling at [PPA]
... and that individual, bar anybody else."
2:23:35 PM
MANDY O'NEAL COLE noted that she would be speaking as a parent
and that she is pro-choice. She said:
When I investigated this bill, I have to admit that it
took me quite a bit of thinking in order to come up
with a position. This is not, as you say, just an
abortion matter; it's also a parent matter, and so I
started thinking about, primarily, what I want for my
children and what kind of relationship I want with my
children. And my sincerest hope is that we have the
kind of relationship where we talk about things like
this - I have a stepdaughter and a son. In fact, I
have to think, in order to stay sane as a parent,
[that] they would come to me for those things. ... It
could drive you crazy if you imagine all of the
horrible things that could happen to your child
without [you] ever knowing it, and so I think for many
of us we need to really believe that we have that kind
of relationship with our children. ... And the idea
that they wouldn't share ... that with me, I think
would be pretty devastating. So really, bottom line
is, I believe that my kids would come to me if there
was that kind of trouble - law or no law.
MS. O'NEAL COLE went on to say:
I also started thinking about the kind of difficulties
... and the kind of adult responsibilities teenagers
take on every single day just living in this world.
And I had to balance my hopes for what would happen,
with my knowledge of reality of what does happen. And
I know that there are teenagers who are afraid to talk
to their parents - ... be that out of feelings of
shame, be that out of fear of physical ... assault, be
that out of fear of being thrown out onto the street -
there are kids who can't talk to their parents, and
these are the very children that we're asking to go
through this judicial bypass system. And ... I hope
many of you haven't had to go to court for something -
for anything, really. I mean, going to court is
sometimes a very difficult process whether you're a
criminal or whether you're just seeking some kind of
civil ... [recourse]; I have helped people get a
protective order before, and these are adult women who
are smart and capable and still very intimidated by
the system. No matter how transparent we want it to
be, the idea that a child is going to be able to take
that on voluntarily and admit to the court what they
couldn't admit or talk to their parents about, is
probably not very likely.
MS. O'NEAL COLE concluded:
So the bottom line is, I want all teenagers to be safe
- not just my own kids - I want all kids to be loved
by their parents, I want all kids to have a
relationship where they can talk to their parents, I
want laws that help children make good choices, but I
want, ultimately, [their] relationships with their
parents to be genuine, authentic, and not forced. And
so if we consider that the majority of teens do
involve a parent in their decision, then the law
doesn't seem that necessary, and the ones who don't,
don't do so for a good reason. And if we are going to
force this to happen, if we're going to make it happen
and possibly endanger one more child with this law, I
don't think it's necessary. I think we should let
girls who've had to conceal that situation from their
parents out of fear make a decision that's safest for
them. And it involves ... some faith, some faith in
your kids, some faith in other people's kids, but I
think as parents we do absolutely everything we can to
be responsible, but we can't make it happen just
because we want it. So let's let kids make decisions
that keep themselves safest, and if we can do that,
then we don't need a law like House Bill 364.
2:28:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked who should be responsible for paying
for any medical care if a pregnant girl, as a result of having
an abortion, ends up with a serious medical condition.
MS. O'NEAL COLE offered her understanding that parents are
always financially responsible for the medical conditions of
their children, regardless of whether consent is given. A
parent can't simply say, "I didn't say you could do this, so I'm
not going to pay for it." For example, she didn't give her son
permission to break his arm, but she still had to pay to get it
fixed. She added:
There are things we have to pay for in order to keep
our children safe and ... functional, and if that
means taking care of a medical issue, paying for a
medical issue after an abortion, I think, if we're
talking about these parents who ... do feel
responsible for their children, they'll be happy to do
that, even if that decision wasn't theirs, if it means
it might save their kid's life.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that a parent might want to sue [a
medical facility] for causing a condition in his/her child for
which the parent now has to pay through no fault of his/her own;
that might be an unintended consequence of failing to pass
HB 364.
MS. O'NEAL COLE, acknowledging that that is a point to consider,
surmised, however, that a parent will have to pay for the cost
of his/her child having a baby that the parent didn't consent to
her having. "Either way, there may be some expenditure, there
may be some responsibility, there may be things that parents
don't want; ... I think, in having children, you know that
things are going to happen that you don't want to happen ... -
they're not going to do everything you hope that they would do,"
she added.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN acknowledged that point.
2:31:07 PM
DEBBIE JOSLIN, President, Eagle Forum Alaska, relayed that she,
Eagle Forum Alaska, and the 1,100 member-families that Eagle
Forum Alaska represents are in support HB 364. She referred to
an organization called Life Dynamics, Inc., and relayed that
that organization had a staff member call different abortion
clinics around the country pretending to be a pregnant 13-year-
old who had a 27-year-old boyfriend and was seeking an abortion.
Ms. Joslin offered her understanding that that staff member was
told by those at the abortion clinics not to tell her parents
and not to mention the boyfriend's age again, and that such
conversations were recorded. She characterized Planned
Parenthood organizations and other abortion clinics as being in
the business of providing abortions and not necessarily seeking
to protect the rights of children.
MS. JOSLIN went on to say:
Whether we like it or not, god has made parents for
kids. And parents are not perfect and they make
mistakes, and some parents are really downright
rotten. But the majority of the time parents are a
great thing, and it is their job and their
responsibility to protect their kids. And it is not
the right of the State or Planned Parenthood or anyone
else to come between a parent and their child. And
... the courts were way out of bounds, in my opinion,
to say that a parent has no right to have consent
required before a minor's abortion.
MS. JOSLIN pointed out that when a child gets a headache at
school, the school must get a parent's permission before
administering aspirin. Furthermore, a child seeking to get a
tattoo or a piercing or join a sports team or go to camp must
also obtain parental consent. On the issue of confidentiality
at school, she offered her belief that although no one wants to
embarrass a young girl by releasing the fact that she is seeking
or has had an abortion, keeping that a secret will cause the
young girl more hurt than would discussing it openly with her
parents.
MS. JOSLIN said that as a parent, she wants her daughters to be
honest with her, but regardless of whether they do, it is her
right as a parent to know what her children are doing and to
have the final say about what is going on with them, and the law
shouldn't interfere with that right. There are girls that have
been sexually abused repeatedly, but their parents didn't know
about it because they were not required to give consent to an
abortion. She added:
We had a women who was engaged to a fellow and he was
having sex with her ... 13-, 14-year-old daughter and
had gotten her two abortions ... before it all came
out, and the reason he could do that was because he
would sexually abuse this girl and he would take her
into an abortion clinic, and he was not her parent -
he was just some man - and they did not require a
parent's signature, and this woman didn't know that
this was going on.
MS. JOSLIN, in conclusion, said she thinks that it would be a
disservice to families, parents, and kids if the bill is not
passed.
2:37:58 PM
ROCKY PLOTNICK, after relaying that she is a health educator and
the parent of four grown children, said that by the time
teenagers in Alaska reach the age of 16, roughly half of them
report that they are sexually active. She offered her belief
that it is very important to encourage parents to talk to their
children and vice versa, and that "values" shouldn't be taught
in the school, and said she supports pregnancy prevention, not
only via obstacles and barriers, but also via abstinence -
though the reality is that not everyone will choose to be
abstinent - and supports open relationships/communication
between parents and children. She mentioned that many of her
children's friends and some of her adult friends have shared
with her some of the sexual issues they've had to deal with, and
opined that although she thinks the intention of HB 364 is good
in terms of parents and their rights, she is afraid that if it
is enacted, the very few young women who may choose to terminate
a pregnancy may be so intimidated by the court system or other
factors that they put themselves in horrible situations. She
expressed concern that there will be people without financial
resources who won't get any assistance. In conclusion, she said
she believes that pregnancy prevention is part of the solution
so that every child is a wanted child and is planned for.
2:43:11 PM
MAKO HAGGERTY stated that he opposes HB 364. He relayed that he
has children and likes to think that he has a good relationship
with them, that his friends have good relationships with their
children, and that he doesn't need the state to mandate him
having open communication with his children - he just does it
because he wants to. Unfortunately, not all kids are as lucky,
and it is those kids that the bill is aimed at, the kids who are
in trouble and have difficulty communicating with their parents
and have no one to turn to. House Bill 364 puts those young
women in a more stressful position than they are already dealing
with. He added, "In fact, I believe that a teenage girl that's
in trouble may be one of the loneliest and weakest members of
our society, and this bill beats them up."
MR. HAGGERTY went on to say:
If you want to outlaw abortion - and ... I can't help
but think that's really what this is all about, and
it's kind of a backdoor way of ... picking away at
abortion rights, but, fair enough, if you want outlaw
abortion - then do so across the board so we don't
pick on the weakest of the weakest of society. I grew
up believing that it's the government's responsibility
to protect weaker members of society - I think that's
the job of government - and this law does not protect
these young women. In fact, I believe these young
women are safer without this law. I oppose House Bill
364 - I believe it's a bully tactic. Thank you for
this opportunity [to speak].
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that some would argue that the fetus is
the weakest of all in society. He said he is interested in
knowing at what age a girl is capable of making "this" decision.
2:47:01 PM
JIM MINNERY, President, Alaska Family Council, indicated that he
would be speaking in support of HB 364. He said the Alaska
Family Council believes that the Alaska Supreme Court decision
declaring the parental consent law unconstitutional strips
parents of the ability to oversee their children's health.
Denying parents the opportunity to be involved in a life-
altering experience such as an abortion encourages alienation
and isolation between parent and child when the child is perhaps
in greatest need for guidance and support. If, he argued, there
isn't any legislation that could create better family
communication, then why are children in Alaska not able to
become licensed drivers, get aspirin at school, get a tattoo,
get pierced, go on field trips, get on a sports team, or join a
local gym without getting parental consent. He opined that the
State does have a vested interest in ensuring that communication
occurs with regard to some issues.
MR. MINNERY, referring to the comment that those teenagers who
don't talk to their parents about getting an abortion don't do
so for a good reason, opined that it really depends on one's
definition of "good." He offered his understanding that a study
conducted of 490 girls that pursued parental bypass in
Massachusetts found that 50 percent reported that they had
positive relationships with their parents. Despite this, those
girls still sought to bypass parental involvement in their
decision to have an abortion: 22 percent of those girls were
trying to avoid parental involvement simply to avoid the loss of
parental trust, avoid parental disappointment, or avoid loss of
parental respect; another 22 percent of those girls wanted to
avoid parental involvement simply because their parents held
different ideological views about abortion. Only three out of
all the girls in that study said they were seeking parental
involvement because they feared possible physical harm from
their parents.
MR. MINNERY offered his belief that had the U.S. Supreme Court
Justice who authored Roe v. Wade been a justice on the Alaska
Supreme Court, he would have upheld Alaska's parental consent
law as constitutional; that the court of that justice's era
consistently upheld parental involvement laws as long as they
included a judicial bypass provision - as was contained in
Alaska's law. Mr. Minnery, noting that his organization agrees,
offered his belief that the dissenting opinion in Planned
Parenthood of Alaska observed that the Alaska legislature went
out of its way in crafting the judicial bypass provision in that
law to accommodate the unique circumstances in Alaska. He also
offered his understanding that the last time the U.S. Supreme
Court considered a parental consent statute, it ruled 9-0 that
that statute was constitutional; and that at the local level, in
Alaska, the medical director of PPA stated that she did not
provide abortions to girls under the age of 17 because she
didn't believe they could handle the process without
parental/adult supervision.
MR. MINNERY, in conclusion, said that his organization believes
that most Alaskans should be outraged that the court has thrown
away the rights of parents to determine whether their daughters
can undergo what he characterized as an invasive, irreversible
surgical procedure that takes the life of their unborn
grandchildren. The Alaska Family Council, he relayed, strongly
urges the committee to support HB 364 and restore the rights of
parents to oversee the health decisions of their children.
2:52:35 PM
JOYCE E. BAMBERGER, after relaying that she was one of the
lawyers who worked on the "parental consent litigation,"
remarked that one of the difficult things that comes to mind
whenever legislation such as HB 364 comes up is that it is truly
counterintuitive - as a parent, everyone recoils at the thought
of not having parental involvement in any minor's decision. But
it's important, she said, to understand that because of the
"strange" language in the bill, the legislature should really
consider what is needed - factually and scientifically - to
protect minors' health, and the language in HB 364 doesn't
provide that yet. She added:
There is so much research on this - it is cited on
both sides ... of the briefs and the many cases that
have been filed [indisc.] - that I think it's pretty
undisputable that over 60 percent of the minors who
seek to have an abortion do so with ... parental
involvement, and those that do not have a good reason
to choose not to do so. I cannot encourage you
enough, before you proceed with this bill, to look at
the scientific research on it. ... I did do some more
[research] since the time of the litigation, and ... I
saw nothing new than what was true years ago when we
presented this issue to the courts.
But basically you can see very good studies by the
Alan Guttmacher Institute, by Stanley Henshaw, and by
articles in something called the Science journal where
you see many physicians who strongly believe that
requiring consent or notification before a minor gets
an abortion is harmful to the health of the young
women. This is, in fact, the position of most doctors
who practice in the area of [obstetrics and
gynecology] and who also are adolescent psychiatrists,
and ... if you wanted ... citations on that, ... I'd
be happy to get them for you.
MS. BAMBERGER, with regard to the concern about the brain
chemistry of minors, pointed out that there is information on
file with the supreme court which illustrates that minors who
are mature enough to decide to give birth are equally mature
enough to decide to have an abortion. Furthermore, by their own
medical guidelines, in obtaining informed consent, doctors
already must counsel their patients to seek the guidance of
their parents, so this is really a redundant bill. In making
public health policy, she cautioned members against simply
responding to hyperbole instead of to scientific facts, and
concluded by saying she opposes HB 364.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether the Guttmacher Institute is
either owned by, an arm of, or associated with Planned
Parenthood.
MS. BAMBERGER said she does not believe it is but would research
that issue further.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "Suppose it is supported or
associated with Planned Parenthood, what difference does that
make?"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that that would reflect the bias of
the organization.
2:58:30 PM
DAVID BRONSON, Treasurer, Alaska Family Council, mentioned that
he is the father of two - a daughter and a son - and said he
would be speaking in favor of HB 364. He referred to Ms.
Joslin's testimony and said there was very little he could add
to that. After pointing out that his daughter must get parental
consent to join a sports team but need not get parental consent
for an abortion, he opined that limiting abortion as much as
possible and bringing adults into the process will protect the
children. Allowing a girl between the ages of 14 and 17 to get
an abortion really isn't making "the problem" go away, because
someone of that age is not capable with dealing with "the
situation." The bill will bring the most important people in a
young girl's life - her parents - into the decision-making
process.
MR. BRONSON, referring to PPA's comment that some minors may
need protection from their parents, opined that PPA is simply
trying to protect its revenue stream. He challenged the
legislature to address the issue of abortion and the question of
whether it is right or wrong; if the legislature determines that
abortion is right, then it should remove restrictions on
abortion, but if the legislature determines that abortion is
wrong, then it should put reasonable restrictions on abortion -
a reasonable restriction such as is being proposed via HB 364.
In conclusion, he said he is in favor of HB 364, and thanked the
sponsor for introducing the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that although he agrees that abortion
is an element of the debate, he views this issue as a parental
rights issue and a separation of power issue.
CHAIR RAMRAS said to Mr. Bronson that although he himself has
concerns with PPA and its agenda, he wouldn't presume that
generating revenue is PPA's top-tier concern; that revenue
generation is not the topic of discussion; and that he would no
more tolerate similar comments being made towards Mr. Bronson's
organization than he will tolerate them being made towards PPA.
3:04:39 PM
AMY CHRISTIANSEN, R.N., offered her understanding that HB 364
will take away a teenager's right to get an abortion without her
parents' permission. She then said:
For me, this is about a teenager's rights, and I think
that it's our job to protect a minor's rights. I'm
pretty sure everyone is familiar with "the Pilgrim
family in McCarthy," and I just wonder, would "Papa
Pilgrim" have been granted permission to keep one of
his children from an abortion, and I think that puts a
face and a name on it that we're all familiar with.
MS. CHRISTIANSEN opined that even if the bill will only affect a
small percent of teenagers, it's those teenagers that need to be
protected. She said she doesn't think the issue is about
protecting a parent's rights but, rather, it's about protecting
a teenager's/minor's rights. A woman is born with the right to
decide [whether or not to give birth], she opined, and just
because a woman is still a teenager, that right shouldn't be
taken away. She said she would hate to see society return to
the days when a teenager has to seek out someone willing to
perform an illegal abortion, because those aren't safe.
MS. CHRISTIANSEN surmised that the issue is one of health care,
since healthcare providers are the ones who provide abortion
services, and that it shouldn't be the doctor's responsibility
to obtain a parent's consent in order to provide that service.
In conclusion, she said she opposes HB 364, and offered her hope
that members will see it for what it is - an attack on a woman's
right to choose.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there is any other legal
restriction in Alaska on the age at which a minor can get other
types of medical care without his/her parents' permission.
MS. CHRISTIANSEN said she did not know, but offered that
pregnancy doesn't have just a medical aspect, but also a
psychological aspect. On the issue of brain chemistry and the
question of at what age is someone capable of making an adult
decision [such as whether to give birth or have an abortion],
she posited that the brain chemistry of many adults still isn't
advanced enough to make such a decision; [having to make such a
decision] isn't a function of how old someone is.
3:09:19 PM
REV ORION relayed that he is a single father of a nine-year-old
son, and that when his son was conceived, his father told him to
seek abortion. He said that he is very much against HB 364
because allowing parents to be a part of a person's decision [of
whether to give birth or have an abortion] seems to be based on
the ability of the parents to communicate with their child. He
remarked that if his son gets into a situation in which he has
to make a grown-up decision and his son doesn't chose to come to
him [for advice], he wouldn't consider that to be a failure on
the part of his son or on the part of some law; rather, it would
a failure on his part because it is his responsibility as a
parent to ensure that his child can communicate with him, and if
he fails to do so, then his child won't include him when making
decisions.
MR. ORION opined that a child shouldn't be punished for a
parent's inability to communicate with the child. A parent's
part in "this decision" is to inform and educate his/her child
so that an unwanted pregnancy doesn't occur to begin with.
Although a parent could be a child's most important resource,
that's not always the case. Furthermore, on the issue of "bad-
acting parents" versus responsible parents, who gets to make
that judgment? What constitutes a responsible parent? Someone
who will tell their child not to have an abortion? Or someone
who will actually communicate with his/her child?
MR. ORION - referring to the comments that children are required
to obtain parental consent before obtaining aspirin at school,
or getting a tattoo or a piercing, or joining a sports team, or
going to camp - pointed out that that is a very weak comparison
because those are all pretty simple things, whereas being
responsible for giving birth to a baby is on quite a different
level. If a girl has a baby at the age of 14, 15, or 16, that
is taking on quite a bit more responsibility than if she is just
taking aspirin or playing sports. Therefore, the question
becomes who should get to make that decision - the person who
will have to become a parent herself for the next 18 years, or
her parents, who weren't even able to bring about quality
communication with their daughter.
MR. ORION, with regard to the argument that a parent will have
to pay for the cost of something going wrong with an abortion
procedure, pointed out that that, too, is part of the
responsibility of being a parent; "you have to be able to
manufacture communication with your child, [and] if you can't do
that, then, yes, you deserve to be called and told that ... now
you need to come take care of this." It's the parents'
responsibility to communicate with their child, and it's not the
government's role to impose such a responsibility upon 14-, 15-,
or 16-year-old girls.
MR. ORION said he works at PPA and has had people call up and
ask whether there is any way to perform an abortion on
themselves. He's had people call up and say that their parents
won't let them have an abortion; he's had people call up and say
their parents were forcing them to have an abortion. He's had
people ask him whether doing "a bunch" of methamphetamine would
succeed in killing the fetus. So when anybody asks staff at PPA
what her options are, he and every other staff member tell the
person that she has three options: adoption, abortion, or
raising a child. No one in the country, he surmised, is running
around promoting abortion, and the thought of such is
ridiculous.
MR. ORION, on the concept of requiring a girl to obtain parental
consent before receiving an abortion, remarked, "How ridiculous
would it be if we forced them to get their parents' permission
to have a baby." In conclusion, he offered his belief that the
real intention of HB 364 is to limit abortion, characterized
[the bill] as poorly thought out, and recommend that members
vote against the bill.
3:15:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Mr. Orion what parental rights should
be retained.
MR. ORION opined that decision-making with regard to either
having an abortion or giving birth should be by the one whose
life will be affected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the bill says a parent,
legal guardian, or custodian may not coerce a minor into having
an abortion, but doesn't speak to coercing a minor into giving
birth.
MR. ORION said he was merely trying to illustrate that there is
a personal decision that needs to be made, and that attempting
to force a child to get her parents' permission to have an
abortion is similar to attempting to force a child to get her
parents' permission to have a baby or to have sex.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding how the committee
would be proceeding.]
3:18:03 PM
JOELLE HALL relayed that she is the mother of two children - a
boy and a girl - and opposes HB 364 on many levels. She
elaborated:
I'll [start and end] with the issue of your desire to
help me parent. When you boil this down to its
essence, this bill is designed to extend my parental
control as long as possible, long after - as most of
us in this room will admit - we quit consulting our
parents and started making decisions for ourselves,
especially about the opposite sex. No matter what we
want, the moment our children decide to have sex, [it]
will happen without us. I know this because I could
have told my parents anything, [but] did I tell them
when I was ready to have sex? No. Why? Because, as
understanding as they were, it was none of their
business. If I had gotten pregnant, I would have
worked really hard to solve my own problem and not
tell them.
I really hope my daughter won't feel the same, but I
can't predict that. This bill just makes it hard for
girls who cannot or will not tell their parents that
they are pregnant [to] access a ... legal and safe
abortion. Teenagers, being what they are - girls who
cannot tell their parents or tell anybody - will do
whatever it takes to ... end their pregnancy and still
not tell. Teenagers think they're immortal and kids
are full of misinformation. This just forces kids
into bad situations, to look to their peers to solve
problems, and I think that we can all admit that that
is not the best place to go looking for answers.
MS. HALL went on to say:
Your desire to extend my parental reach is
understandable. Some people apparently want to use
the government to maintain our roles as parents and
advisor after nature starts to drive us and our
children apart. But it won't work. And what I mean
by "apart" is, they start to grow and we start to
cling - it's the human condition, but it doesn't
change anything. In my opinion, this bill flies in
the face of reality. Your insistence on controlling
our girls will ironically result in them resorting to
their own devices. Teenagers will turn to unsafe
methods ... and deal with each other to end their
unwanted pregnancies. We all want to be involved in
these important decisions, [but] no matter how many
laws you pass trying to help me parent, you can't make
my daughter tell me if she doesn't want to. This bill
might actually have the unintended consequence of
stifling, not encouraging, conversations.
MS. HALL, with regard to the issue brain chemistry, said that a
book titled The Female Brain speaks about the influence of sex
hormones on the unborn, on babies, on women, and on women going
through menopause, as well as speaking about what teenage girls
are thinking about: sex. Even so, girls think about sex only
about 20 percent as much as boys do, and so they are kind of in
a difficult situation. With regard to the piercing and tattoo
analogy, Ms. Hall pointed out that what a teenager can't get
without their parents' permission is a supervised, clean,
licensed tattoo or piercing - teenagers can still get a tattoo
[or piercing] from their friends or from an unauthorized source.
That's what's at issue here, she opined, keeping [abortion] safe
and legal, or driving it underground.
3:21:58 PM
ANN LINDSLEY relayed that she is 18 years old, has recently
graduated from high school, is now out of state attending
college, and would be speaking on behalf of teenage girls.
Although HB 364 would no longer affect her, she remarked, it
would still affect some of her friends in high school. She went
on to say:
I have a great relationship with my mother and my
parents, and I would naturally tell her even now if I
needed an abortion, but I fear for all the girls that
can't. This is a very personal issue; it should not
be State mandated. Keeping teenagers safe needs to be
the top priority. And in my town you can't get an
abortion - you can't even get an abortion in the next
town over - you'd have to go up to Anchorage, and most
teens would need to get their parents' permission to
either drive through Canada to get up to Anchorage or
to get ... a plane ticket, so they need to talk to
their parents anyways.
So we need to make sure [that on] their own terms they
talk to their parents. We need to make sure that
parents are willing to talk to their kids. Making it
State mandated and putting it into law will not help
things. And then finally, this idea of going to a
judge and getting a court order would be excessively
complicated - especially in my town. Getting an
excuse from school, I know the secretaries personally,
I know their kids - I'm good friends with their kids -
and ... something I know I wouldn't [want to] have to
do is to go in and give a note to get to miss class to
go to court, especially if they'd know the reason.
It's just something I find way too personal and I
wouldn't want the school to be able to get involved
with that.
MS. LINDSLEY concluded:
And going to court and going through a complicated
process just seems like way too much work and it
extends the ... time excessively. I think the most
important thing is to be able to keep teenagers safe,
and sometimes that means they don't/can't tell their
parents, and that's just the way it is. ... I agree
with all who have opposed [HB 364] and I believe many
of them have made excellent points.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that HB 364 would be held over with
public testimony remaining open.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:27 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|