Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/25/1997 01:06 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
April 25, 1997
1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Eric Croft
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 106
"An Act relating to the bond required of a notary public."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 112(JUD)
"An Act relating to marriage licenses; and transferring
responsibility for marriage licensing from judicial officers to the
state registrar of vital statistics."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 38(JUD)
"An Act relating to anatomical gifts, living wills, and do not
resuscitate orders."
- MOVED HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 3(JUD)
"An Act authorizing prosecution and trial in the district court of
municipal curfew violations, and providing for punishment of minors
upon conviction for violation of a curfew ordinance."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 234
"An Act relating to assistance for abortions under the general
relief program; and relating to financial responsibility for the
costs of abortions."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 245
"An Act relating to minimum sentences for assault in the fourth
degree that is a crime involving domestic violence; providing that
a prisoner may not contact the victim of the offense when provided
access to a telephone or otherwise immediately after an arrest; and
amending Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
- BILL CANCELLED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 106
SHORT TITLE: NOTARY PUBLIC BOND
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/26/97 519 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/26/97 519 (S) JUDICIARY
03/07/97 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/07/97 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/10/97 653 (S) JUD RPT 2DP 1NR
03/10/97 653 (S) DP: PEARCE, MILLER; NR: ELLIS
03/10/97 653 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COURT)
03/12/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/12/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/12/97 690 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/12/97
03/12/97 696 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/12/97 696 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/12/97 696 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 106
03/12/97 696 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
03/12/97 702 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/14/97 661 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/14/97 661 (H) JUDICIARY
04/25/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 112
SHORT TITLE: MARRIAGE LICENSING FUNCTIONS
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/05/97 571 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/05/97 571 (S) JUDICIARY
03/26/97 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/26/97 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/01/97 915 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP SAME TITLE
04/01/97 916 (S) DP: TAYLOR, PEARCE, MILLER
04/01/97 916 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB (COURT, DHSS)
04/03/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/03/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/03/97 958 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB APPLY TO CS
(COURT,DHSS)
04/03/97 957 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/3/97
04/03/97 959 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/03/97 960 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/03/97 960 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/03/97 960 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 112(JUD)
04/03/97 960 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
04/03/97 966 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/04/97 984 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/04/97 984 (H) JUDICIARY
04/25/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 38
SHORT TITLE: ANATOMICAL GIFTS, LIVING WILLS & DNR ORDER
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/10/97 24 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/97
01/13/97 24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 24 (S) HES, JUD
01/24/97 125 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
-REFERRALS
01/24/97 125 (S) HES, JUD
01/31/97 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
01/31/97 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/03/97 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/03/97 207 (S) HES RPT 4DP 1NR
02/03/97 207 (S) DP:WILKEN, WARD, LEMAN, GREEN;
NR:ELLIS
02/03/97 207 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SS (DHSS)
02/03/97 207 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SS (DPS)
02/05/97 237 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED FOLLOWING
JUDICIARY
02/14/97 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/14/97 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/17/97 379 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP SAME TITLE
02/17/97 379 (S) DP: TAYLOR, PARNELL, PEARCE
02/17/97 379 (S) FN SAME AS PREVIOUS (DHSS)
02/20/97 429 (S) ZERO FN SAME AS PREVIOUS (DPS)
02/25/97 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/25/97 492 (S) FIN RPT 5DP 2NR (JUD)CS
02/25/97 492 (S) DP: SHARP, PEARCE, DONLEY, TORGERSON,
02/25/97 492 (S) PARNELL NR: ADAMS, PHILLIPS
02/25/97 492 (S) PREVIOUS FN (DHSS)
02/25/97 492 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)
02/26/97 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/26/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/27/97 536 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/27/97
02/27/97 538 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/27/97 538 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/27/97 539 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/27/97 539 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSSSB 38(JUD)
02/27/97 539 (S) PASSED Y17 N- E3
02/27/97 543 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/05/97 535 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/05/97 535 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/18/97 (H) JUD AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/18/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/25/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 3
SHORT TITLE: MINOR'S CURFEW VIOLATIONS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PEARCE, Donley
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/97 14 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 14 (S) HES,JUD
02/21/97 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/21/97 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/21/97 446 (S) HES RPT 2DP 2NR 1AM
02/21/97 446 (S) DP:WILKEN,WARD;NR:ELLIS,GREEN;
AM:LEMAN
02/21/97 446 (S) FISCAL NOTE (COURT)
02/21/97 446 (S) ZERO FN (DPS)
02/21/97 446 (S) INDETERMINATE FNS (ADM, DHSS)
02/21/97 446 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED FOLLOWING
JUDICIARY
03/07/97 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/07/97 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/10/97 652 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 1NR NEW TITLE
03/10/97 652 (S) DP: PEARCE, MILLER, PARNELL;
NR: ELLIS
03/14/97 739 (S) PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN APPLIES
(DHSS)
03/21/97 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/21/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/21/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/25/97 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/25/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/25/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/25/97 850 (S) FIN RPT 4DP 2NR JUD CS
03/25/97 850 (S) DP: PEARCE, SHARP, PARNELL, TORGERSON
03/25/97 850 (S) NR: PHILLIPS, ADAMS
03/25/97 850 (S) PREVIOUS FN (COURT)
03/25/97 850 (S) PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FNS(ADM, DHSS)
03/25/97 850 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)
04/09/97 (S) RLS AT 11:16 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/14/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/14/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/15/97 1144 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/15/97
04/15/97 1144 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/15/97 1145 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/15/97 1145 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/15/97 1145 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 3(JUD)
04/15/97 1145 (S) PASSED Y15 N2 E3
04/15/97 1145 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/16/97 1227 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/16/97 1228 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/17/97 1131 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/17/97 1131 (H) JUDICIARY
04/25/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 234
SHORT TITLE: ABORTIONS UNDER GENERAL RELIEF PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN, Green, Kohring, Kott, Dyson,
Sanders, Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
04/04/97 990 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/04/97 990 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/07/97 1019 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/08/97 1030 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SANDERS
04/09/97 1047 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
04/23/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/23/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/25/97 (H) JUD AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
820 West 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2005
Telephone: (907) 264-8265
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 106 and CSSB 112(JUD).
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4906
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HCS CSSSSB
38(JUD).
KARYN DENTON, Associate Director
LifeCenter Northwest
600 Broadway, Suite 260
Seattle, Washington 98122-5371
(After August 1, 1997:
2575 76th Avenue SE
Mercer Island, Washington 98040-2758)
Telephone: (888) 543-3287
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD).
EDWARD HUPPMAN, JR., Executive Director
LifeCenter Northwest
600 Broadway, Suite 260
Seattle, Washington 98122-5371
(See above for address after August 1, 1997)
Telephone: (888) 543-3287
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD).
JENS SAAKVITNE, Director
Life Alaska, Incorporated
1205 East International Airport Road, Suite 103
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 562-5433
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD).
LISA KIRSCH, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green and Committee Aide
for the House Judiciary Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD).
MATT ANDERSON, Unit Manager
Emergency Medical Services Unit
Community Health and Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110616
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0616
Telephone: (907) 465-3027
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD).
MYRNA MAYNARD, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Senator Drue Pearce
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 518
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4747
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for CSSB 3(JUD).
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
McLaughlin Youth Center
2600 Providence Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 562-2285
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding CSSB 3(JUD).
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 234.
NANCY WELLER, Medical Assistance Administrator
Division of Medical Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110660
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0660
Telephone: (907) 465-5825
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 234.
PETER NAKAMURA, MD, MPH, Director
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110610
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0610
Telephone: (907) 465-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 234; expressed concern
about health issues.
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General
Legislation and Regulations Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 234; expressed concern
about constitutional and other issues.
CARLA TIMPONE, Lobbyist
for the Alaska Women's Lobby
211 Fourth Street, Number 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 234.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-63, SIDE B
Number 1391
(FIRST PORTION OF TAPE 97-63 IS MORNING MEETING OF SAME DATE)
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Bunde, Porter and James. Representatives
Berkowitz and Rokeberg arrived at 1:11 p.m. and 1:56 p.m.,
respectively. The meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage and to
Seattle, Washington.
SB 106 - NOTARY PUBLIC BOND
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the first order of business was
Senate Bill No. 106, "An Act relating to the bond required of a
notary public."
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Office of the
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, came forward to
present the bill, saying the court system had requested its
introduction. Right now, when a person submits an application to
be a notary public, the application must first receive a signature
from the clerk of the superior court; the clerk then forwards it to
the office of the lieutenant governor, which oversees notaries.
The clerks only ensure that applications are filled out before
signing and forwarding them; it is not something they are uniquely
qualified to do. This bill deletes the requirement for the clerk's
signature, allowing someone to send the application directly to the
lieutenant governor, which eliminates an extra step.
Number 1515
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES asked whether Mr. Wooliver knew why
that signature had been required.
MR. WOOLIVER said he had checked; it had been a requirement since
statehood. At that time, the court performed other duties,
including work related to passports. However, Mr. Wooliver had
been unable to find any reason why this specifically went through
a court clerk. He noted that other types of bonds must be
submitted to various agencies that oversee the activities, none of
which go through the court system. He said the reason this came up
was that the clerk of court in Anchorage was signing these one day
and wondering why it was done, as it slows the process and seems to
serve no purpose.
Number 1571
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised that she had been a notary previously.
She said there were two ways to execute an official bond. One was
to buy a bond from an insurance company and the other was for a
person to put up his or her own bond that guaranteed possession of
the personal means to back it up. She asked whether the ability to
put up one's own bond might relate to approval by the clerk of the
court.
MR. WOOLIVER explained that the clerk does not actually check any
of those bonds. He referred to the handbook and said it specifies
that currently, a person cannot be his or her own surety.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES acknowledged that it may have changed.
MR. WOOLIVER concurred and said he was not sure. He did know that
when clerks looked at the applications, they did not look to see
whether or not an applicant actually had the bond. He explained,
"Somebody else can act as a surety for you. They just put their
name down; they say they have assets worth $1,000 and they're
willing to put them up. We don't check that. All we do is make
sure the form is filled out - all the blanks are filled in - and we
put a signature on it."
Number 1685
CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered whether there was some tie with statehood
that had long since disappeared.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that this is the kind of bill she
likes, as it repeals a duty that is no longer necessary. She said
the legislature should applaud the court for bringing it forward.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to move SB 106 from
committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, SB 106 was moved from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
CSSB 112(JUD) - MARRIAGE LICENSING FUNCTIONS
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next order of business was CS for
Senate Bill No. 112(JUD), "An Act relating to marriage licenses;
and transferring responsibility for marriage licensing from
judicial officers to the state registrar of vital statistics."
Number 1773
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Office of the
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, presented CSSB
112(JUD). The court system had asked that this bill be introduced;
it is part of a plan to move away from the court system some
functions that are not judicial. He advised that the bill was
jointly written with the registrar of Vital Statistics; that agency
is taking over vital statistics duties from the court system. The
court has already transferred most vital statistics functions to
that agency, as well as the personnel that go along with those
duties. However, transferring the marriage license function must
be done by statute because under the statute, judges issue marriage
licenses. This bill allows Vital Statistics to issue marriage
licenses.
MR. WOOLIVER explained that in most courts, as a matter of
practicality, court employees will still be issuing the marriage
licenses. However, they will do so as the local registrars for
Vital Statistics. But in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, there
are Vital Statistics offices that will issue marriage licenses.
Number 1868
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked whether this makes it more
difficult to obtain a license.
MR. WOOLIVER said it should make it easier in Anchorage, Fairbanks
and Juneau, at least, because there will be one location to obtain
the license and record it. Currently, a person must go to the
court to obtain a marriage license and to Vital Statistics to
record it. Elsewhere, it would remain the same; the local
magistrate or clerk of court would perform the function, but under
the auspices of Vital Statistics rather than as a judicial
function.
Number 1922
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSSB 112(JUD) from
committee with individual recommendations. There being no
objection, CSSB 112(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
CSSSSB 38(JUD) - ANATOMICAL GIFTS, LIVING WILLS & DNR ORDER
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next order of business was CS for
Sponsor Substitute for Senate Bill No. 38(JUD), "An Act relating to
anatomical gifts, living wills, and do not resuscitate orders."
Number 2010
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor,
presented the sponsor statement. He advised that there was a
committee substitute, which he offered to explain after presenting
the gist of the bill.
MR. AMBROSE said the bill clarifies the existing statute dealing
with living wills; it also adds a provision by which those who
execute a living will can choose to become an organ donor or tissue
donor. By adding this provision to the statutory language of a
living will, loved ones and health care professionals would be
fully informed of the wishes of family members and patients. Mr.
Ambrose pointed out that we live in a technological age in which
the need for tissue and organ donation is much greater than the
supply. While it is not a legitimate function of government to
dictate whether a person should become an organ or tissue donor, it
is wise to facilitate the process.
MR. AMBROSE explained that the bill would also instruct the
Division of Motor Vehicles to indicate on a driver's license not
only that the bearer had elected to become an organ donor but also
that the bearer had a living will. Other than nominal expenses,
the legislation should cost little to enforce and may become
invaluable if it increases Alaskans' participation in organ and
tissue donor programs.
MR. AMBROSE advised that they had contacted the Center for
Transplant Services at the University of Washington hospital to
determine the scope of transplants involving Alaskans. Since 1989,
19 Alaskans have received (indisc.--papers over microphone)
transplants through that facility. Twelve have received liver
transplants, and one received both a kidney and a pancreas. As of
January 24th of this year, that one facility had a wait-list of 20
Alaskans needing kidney transplants, 11 seeking donated livers and
one waiting for a donated pancreas. The United Network for Organ
Sharing, the national clearinghouse, had 68 Alaskans on their wait-
list. Since 1988, that same organization documented 207 Alaskans
who have received donor organs. Mr. Ambrose offered to address the
committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to accept the committee
substitute, version 0-LS0183\L, Bannister, 4/4/97, as a work draft.
There being no objection, that version was before the committee.
Number 2253
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked: If this is enacted and a person is somewhere
else in the state or in another state, how would the organs get to
where they need to be?
MR. AMBROSE suggested that a representative from Life Alaska
Transplant, Incorporated, explain how that happens.
TAPE 97-64, SIDE A
Number 0006
MR. AMBROSE said he understands there is reciprocity with some
states; they have been asked to look at that larger issue for
possible future legislation. Right now, the basic problem is that
two separate statutes contain provisions that should relate to each
other but do not. The bill attempts to correct this. Mr. Ambrose
said they have worked with Department of Health and Social Services
personnel, especially those providing emergency medical technician
(EMT) services, for whom this becomes critical.
MR. AMBROSE referred to page 4 of the proposed committee substitute
and said there is an inherent conflict in this process. Most
people fill out a living will to inform health care providers that
they do not want to be resuscitated in certain situations, and that
is a living will's generally accepted purpose. However, an organ
donation for transplant must occur almost immediately after death.
Therefore, a terminal patient who wants to be an organ donor but
who has a "do not resuscitate" (DNR) order presents a conflict.
MR. AMBROSE read the new language on page 4, beginning at line 6,
and indicated this provision in the living will addresses the
problem. Referring to line 8, he said the phrase "hospital
setting" is there because if a person is in a medical setting,
these evaluations can take place. He noted that a valid DNR order
is issued by a doctor; it is not something the individual fills
out. He explained, "There are folks who have certain conditions,
and if they're involved in an accident, for instance, there is
notification on their driver's license that the doctor has issued
a `do not resuscitate' order. We don't want to put our EMTs in a
situation that they have to disregard that, okay? So we want that
to happen in the hospital setting."
MR. AMBROSE mentioned the language relating to 71 years of age and
deferred to the representative from Life Alaska Transplant,
Incorporated, to explain where that came from. He commented, "That
worked itself in during some consultation between the organ donor
groups and the drafting attorney."
Number 0288
MR. AMBROSE referred to page 6, beginning at line 14, and
explained, "We reiterate the provision as far as the hospital
setting, and this is for the protection of the EMTs. The rest of
that, through page 8 at line 11, is language that basically
involves the revocation of `do not resuscitate' orders and things
that apply to EMTs; and there is someone from the division that can
walk you through that."
MR. AMBROSE referred to page 6, beginning at line 27 and continuing
to page 7. He said the Department of Law recommends deletion of
subsections (e)(2) and (e)(4); the sponsor agrees. Mr. Ambrose
advised that those two subsections have to do with guardians and
powers of attorney.
MR. AMBROSE reported that the remaining language in the proposed
committee substitute, beginning with Section 16, is from the
original bill.
Number 0392
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether by deleting subsections (e)(2) and
(e)(4), guardianship of an individual may take precedence over the
subsequent signing of an organ donation form or living will. He
asked what the priorities are for these various documents.
MR. AMBROSE replied that the way this provision reads, a physician
may not revoke a DNR order at the request of a person who did not
ask for it in the first place.
CHAIRMAN GREEN posed a scenario where a person is mentally
incapacitated but has organs from the neck down that function fine.
He asked whether there is a potential for conflict.
MR. AMBROSE offered to call someone from the Department of Law to
explain the recommendation.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said he would appreciate that. He asked Karyn
Denton whether she had information to add to the discussion.
Number 0551
KARYN DENTON, Associate Director, LifeCenter Northwest, testified
via teleconference from Seattle, Washington. She acknowledged that
she had heard the conversation and stated, "But it seems to be more
an order of priority in terms of the consent processes related to
the living will part, rather than the actual part that we
(indisc.), an individual being an organ donor."
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that earlier, a question had been asked about
what happens if someone is in a less-than-desirable setting, rather
than in a hospital where the organ can be easily extracted and
preserved until use. He asked whether there is a precedent or
something in the living will that would say, for example, that
costs would be paid for out of the deceased person's estate or by
the state.
MS. DENTON replied, "No, absolutely not." She explained that when
a patient is found to be suitable for a solid organ donation and
has indicated that is their wish, those costs are borne by the
organ recovery process and system. There is no charge to the
family's estate nor to the state where the deceased resided. To
her knowledge, in 15 years of organ recovery within their service
area, that had never been a problem.
Number 0670
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Denton to explain the provision
regarding 71 years of age.
MS. DENTON said the age criteria for solid organs ranges from zero
to 70 years, although they have evaluated patients beyond that.
There seems to be concern about using the standard zero-to-70
warning because of the question of what to do if a person is closer
to 71 years of age than 70. As she recalled it, the recommendation
was made to her organization to simply raise the upper age limit to
71 years so that 70-to-71-year-old individuals are included. She
stated, "That age, I would say, encompasses the most likelihood of
the older individual who ..., because of the criteria used to
evaluate organs, ... would be found to be a suitable organ
transplant candidate." She deferred to the director of LifeCenter
Northwest to address that.
Number 0757
EDWARD HUPPMAN, JR., Executive Director, LifeCenter Northwest,
testified via teleconference from Seattle, Washington. He stated
that the age criteria was a concern of someone from Life Alaska
Transplant, Incorporated. Noting that the industry standard is
around age 70, he said an unlimited age criteria would create more
confusion for, and an excess burden on, EMTs in the field who found
a DNR order and an organ donation identification for someone beyond
what is considered a normal age for organ donation. They want to
avoid having the bill become a major problem for emergency medical
service (EMS) personnel with regard to people beyond that age
limit, whom his organization would not consider organ donors.
Number 0823
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded, "You put me in an awkward
position, because I don't want to tell people over the age of 70
that their bodies have little value. It seemed to me that it's
more of a policy question for you to determine, since you're the
folks who want the organs." He stated that he would rather not put
the 71-year-old limit in the legislation. He believes that should
be up to individual evaluation.
MR. HUPPMAN replied, "Then we totally agree. I have no problem
with having that age criteria removed."
Number 0865
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that in other committees where he
had served, there had been extensive discussions about organ and
tissue donation. In every case, it had been strongly affirmed that
this was at the expense of the recipient, not the donor. As to the
71-year-old limit, he acknowledged the dilemma for an EMT of a "do
not resuscitate" order for an organ donor; if EMTs were uncertain
how to proceed, the age criteria would at least indicate that the
person was unlikely to be an organ donor and, therefore, the EMTs
could abide by the DNR directive. He asked: Are you aware of
anyone over the age of 71 having been an organ donor?
MR. HUPPMAN replied that there are very few occasions where that
has happened. He knew of one or two where, because of demand for
organs, they had extended their criteria for considering people
beyond age 70. However, that is only in the rarest of instances.
They try to evaluate an organ more from a physiological standpoint
than a chronological one. He said they have had to put a qualifier
somewhere, and age 70 seems to be the "high-end limit" for
consideration. He advised that those people are evaluated very,
very carefully.
Number 0996
CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned Mr. Huppman's answer to Representative
Berkowitz indicating he had no problem with removing the 71-year
restriction. He noted that Mr. Huppman had just mentioned having
to put some age limit in there.
MR. HUPPMAN replied, "That was more internally."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "`Internally' saying that you probably
wouldn't look at someone over 70, but there isn't a reason that
they couldn't have this type of an arrangement?"
MR. HUPPMAN replied, "That's correct."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that they were looking at a fairly
narrow segment of people who both have a DNR order and a wish to
donate organs. There would be no dilemma for an EMT if someone had
no DNR order, for example.
Number 1083
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she had carried a card for 30 or 40 years
that says she will donate her eyes or corneas to the Lions eye
bank. Noting that it will not be long before she is 70, she asked
whether she should stop carrying that card.
MR. HUPPMAN replied, "No, absolutely not." He said tissue and eye
donation have different criteria, and he suggested a representative
of Life Alaska, Incorporated, address that. Mr. Huppman said the
age-70 cut-off applies to solid organs. In contrast, eye donation
has an unlimited age criteria, if not for transplant purposes, then
definitely for eye research.
Number 1161
JENS SAAKVITNE, Director, Life Alaska, Incorporated, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He agreed that while there are
specific criteria as far as an upper age of 70 for organ donation,
there is almost no upper age limit for tissue donation. He stated,
"We have had donors in their 90s where tissue was used for
transplants; for research donation, there's absolutely no upper
age. But for tissue donation, we also have up to 24 hours after
the heart stops."
MR. SAAKVITNE continued, "The reason for both the hospital setting
and, to an extent, the inclusion of the under-age-71 criteria is
that the EMS is faced in the field with a very short period of
time. When they come upon a `non-heart-beating' patient or someone
who's about to die [and] they find a DNR card and an organ donor
card, what do you do? What is the best way to support this
person's wishes?"
MR. SAAKVITNE noted that most people who carry DNR cards tend to be
older and may have a terminal illness that will pretty much rule
out organ donation. Medical personnel do not want to do a
disservice to a family by needlessly resuscitating patients,
generating all sorts of costs and a lot of heartache. Mr.
Saakvitne stated, "So, we try and come up with criteria such as the
`in a hospital setting,' number one, and number two, some type of
age criteria that says people that are older than this age, let's
not even go ahead and try to extend this resuscitation period, to
make it simpler."
CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to page 6, lines 27 through 29, and page 7,
lines 1 through 4. He asked Lisa Kirsch to discuss the pros and
cons of dropping those two subsections, (e)(2) and (e)(4).
Number 1287
LISA KIRSCH, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative
Joe Green and Committee Aide for the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, advised that she had spoken with someone from the
Department of Law regarding those two deletions. Subsection (e),
defines when a DNR order can be revoked. The physician cannot
revoke the order unless the individual himself or herself does so.
However, if the individual is unconscious, for example, it can also
be revoked by a parent; a guardian appointed under AS 13.26.116; a
person to whom that decision has been communicated from the
individual; or a person who has power of attorney for the
individual.
MS. KIRSCH referred to subsection (e)(2) and explained that
although AS 13.26.116 puts guardianship orders into effect, it does
not give an appointed guardian the power to put a "do not
resuscitate" order into effect. The concern of the Department of
Law is that by giving guardians the power to take such orders out
of effect, it may imply they also have the power to put them into
effect. They do not want to create any ambiguity as to whether
guardians or persons with power of attorney have those powers of
life and death over their wards or over persons for whom they hold
power of attorney.
Number 1440
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested two categories were missing from
that list: the spouse and the child. He believes spouses and
children should be allowed the opportunity to make that call.
MS. KIRSCH asked whether he was talking about revoking a "do not
resuscitate" order, as this would be for a person who had filled
out such an order. She indicated he may be talking about a
situation where the spouse or child had been given that power,
since that is the way the others are written.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded, "At the very least, I think
it's something that people want to talk about, or I think maybe we
should talk about."
MS. KIRSCH suggested in that context, perhaps they should be
talking about amendments to Title 13, rather than this bill, which
focuses more on organ donation. She deferred to the sponsor for a
response, then commented that she does not believe the intent is to
create any new law. She said those deletions are to focus on organ
donation and avoid changing existing law on guardianships or
guardianship-like circumstances where a concerned person and
someone incapacitated are involved.
Number 1532
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER commented on the remaining two
exceptions under subsection (e) and suggested, "I don't think it
would be changing much if we said that a guardian, spouse or child
who had been given that authority specifically, by the person who
filled it out, would have the authority to pull it. But, I mean,
you're defeating the whole purpose of it if you say that anyone
else can change my mind."
Number 1579
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE concurred, asking what would be the point of
a DNR order if anybody could revoke it.
Number 1615
MATT ANDERSON, Unit Manager, Emergency Medical Services Unit,
Community Health and Emergency Medical Services, Division of Public
Health, Department of Health and Social Services, came forward to
testify, expressing the department's support of the bill as
written. He stated, "We believe that SB 38 will make it much
easier for health care workers to identify individuals who have
living wills and to those who will be able to identify patients who
... wish to donate organs and issues. We hope this will ensure
that we are able to comply more fully with the patients' wishes
regarding medical care, anatomical gifts, and that that, in turn,
will increase the availability of organs and tissues available for
donation."
MR. ANDERSON continued, "In addition, this bill clarifies how `do
not resuscitate' orders can be revoked, something which was not
clear in existing state statute and is an issue that is extremely
important for pre-hospital emergency care workers." He expressed
appreciation to the sponsor for his willingness to allow the
department to make suggestions to improve the bill as it went
through the process. He offered to answer questions.
Number 1680
CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to discussion of whether a guardian or
person holding a power attorney should have authority to revoke a
"do not resuscitate" order. He asked Ms. Denton whether Washington
or other states have a similar provision.
MS. DENTON replied, "Not that I'm aware of."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to amend the proposed committee
substitute by deleting subsections (e)(2) and (e)(4), found at page
6, lines 27 through 29, and page 7, lines 1 through 4.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection. There being
none, the amendment was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that the other subsections would be
renumbered accordingly.
Number 1760
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to remove the 71-year
restriction. He said it seemed to be a little arbitrary. In
addition, he did not feel it was right to single out "people who
have reached that exalted stage."
Number 1775
MR. AMBROSE advised that the sponsor would have no objection so
long as the language "in a hospital setting" remains; that
evaluation could be made in the hospital. He explained, "We just
don't want it to be in a situation where it's in the field and the
folks that provide these wonderful responses in the field have to
be making these choices."
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that the age reference occurs in at least two
places. He asked, "Would your amendment be to actually find them
or just wherever that restriction is, ... it would be removed but
not ... the `hospital setting' portion of that."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied, "What you said, Mr. Chairman."
Number 1808
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection to that
concept.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested the 71-year age would remain for
nonmedical settings, such as in the field for EMTs.
CHAIRMAN GREEN concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said in that case, he had no objection.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was further objection. Hearing
none, he advised that the conceptual amendment was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion that the proposed committee
substitute, as amended, be moved from committee with individual
recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no
objection, HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
SB 3 - MINOR'S CURFEW VIOLATIONS
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business was CS for
Senate Bill No. 3(JUD), "An Act authorizing prosecution and trial
in the district court of municipal curfew violations, and providing
for punishment of minors upon conviction for violation of a curfew
ordinance."
Number 1904
MYRNA MAYNARD, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Drue
Pearce, came forward to present CSSB 3(JUD) on behalf of the
sponsor. The bill had been introduced in response to an article in
the Anchorage newspaper relating to Juneau. The City and Borough
of Juneau had wanted to institute a curfew ordinance but was unable
to do so because juvenile curfew cases are heard by the Division of
Family and Youth Services (DFYS) and then go to the superior court.
Ms. Maynard said curfew violations were low on the agenda for DFYS
and did not get heard. Kids knew that even if they were cited for
a curfew violation, nothing would happen to them. Thus, this bill
was introduced.
MS. MAYNARD noted that the bill has the support of the Municipality
of Anchorage, the City and Borough of Juneau, the mayor's task
force on youth in Juneau and the Alaska Peace Officers Association.
She advised that there was a fiscal note from the court system for
$24,000.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed concern that the bill may impede
a municipality's ability to choose how to proceed.
MS. MAYNARD responded, "No, it will have no effect. ... If you have
a youth court or some other system in place, this does not affect
it at all."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked: If a municipality chose to proceed
under the juvenile rules, would they be precluded from doing that?
MS. MAYNARD replied, "No."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that alleviated his concern.
MS. MAYNARD reported that Judge Peter Froehlich of the Alaska
District Court in Juneau has a Friday afternoon juvenile court
where he hears violations relating to tobacco, firearms, alcohol
and so forth. "And he loves this and wants to put it in place,
because they have a real problem, evidently, here in Juneau," she
stated. "And he doesn't think the fiscal impact is going to be
great because probably 75 percent of the kids they see already,
under the alcohol and those other violations, would also be the
curfew [violators]."
MS. MAYNARD said at the request of Assemblyman Murdy from
Anchorage, they put in the ability to have community work in lieu
of a fine. She explained, "We couldn't mandate that because that's
putting them into servitude, and then they would be entitled to a
trial by jury; so, we've made it that the violator can choose to do
community work if they can't pay the fine. And perhaps some
parents who choose not to pay the fine will encourage their
children to choose community work because it will have more effect
on them, and they may think twice before they violate the curfew
again. At least, that's our hope."
Number 2081
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated he had discussed this with "some
of the folks at APD" who were doing truancy work; they believe that
this is a highly effective way of doing community-based policing
and that it has a big impact on reducing overall crime rates.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the sponsor had received comments
about the state's taking action on behalf of municipalities.
MS. MAYNARD said no, although a parent had come to one meeting to
voice support, hoping juveniles will stop after the first or second
violation.
Number 2132
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised that he was trying to find in the
bill where there is an option on how to deal with a violation, such
as sending the case to a youth court.
CHAIRMAN GREEN called an at-ease. He called the meeting back to
order at 2:00 p.m.
Number 2207
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, Division of Family and
Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services, came
forward to testify. One concern the department has about the bill
is that although it appears to be a civil infraction to violate a
curfew or tobacco ordinance, in practice a citation is issued and
if the young person fails to appear in district court in response
to that citation summons, the court issues a "failure to appear"
warrant.
MR. BUTTCANE explained that although that is not a problem in most
of Alaska, 20 to 30 percent of the detention population at the
Johnson Youth Center in Juneau are young people who have failed to
appear in district court for possession of tobacco or minor-
consuming-alcohol violations. He stated, "And this bill, although
it doesn't directly cause young people to be detained in our youth
facilities or to fall into the juvenile system, kind of by default,
because they are in violation of this `failure to appear' order and
then subject to contempt issues, they're clogging up our detention
facilities."
MR. BUTTCANE advised that Margot Knuth had been unable to attend
this hearing but could speak more to the legalities. He explained,
"We would like to see some provision that would ensure that it
stays in a civil realm. In terms of the options available to
municipalities, I know Anchorage did go to a hearing officer for
these cases. They had something in the neighborhood of 1,100 or
1,200 curfew violations, I believe, once they instituted the
ordinance in the Municipality of Anchorage. And even if a small
portion of them started ending up in our detention facility in
Anchorage, the system would grind to a halt." He said they did not
need to put people who smoke tobacco in "concrete and cinder
block."
Number 2301
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned the difference between civil and
criminal contempt. He said most failures to appear are outgrowths
of criminal contempt charges. He suggested if there were a way of
proceeding for civil contempt, even though it may subject someone
to a warrant and arrest, it would not have the same criminal
consequences as a criminal contempt charge would. He said he
wished someone were present who could address that.
MR. BUTTCANE replied that he could ask the Department of Law to
respond. He stated, "I do know here in Juneau there were 41
detention admissions at the Johnson Youth Center from the district
court for those. So, whatever those nuances are, we are ending up
with people detained at our youth facility for failure to appear on
these issues."
Number 2345
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what kind of statistics Mr. Buttcane had
regarding the admissions to the Juneau youth facility. She asked
how long people were detained and what has happened to them
following that.
MR. BUTTCANE replied that he did not have specific numbers broken
down in that way, although he believed they could be obtained.
"They are identifiable cases, and we could summarize what they look
like," he added.
Number 2366
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested they meet about that later. She
said she has always been a proponent of the reform school concept,
mostly because many of her foster kids came from that concept. She
noted that many offenders are not "super-bad" but will not mind
their parents, who have lost control of them. She wanted to know
whether that was the last they heard from kids put in that system
for minor infractions or whether their behavior worsened because of
the influence of others in the system whose misbehavior was more
serious.
MR. BUTTCANE indicated the department could provide that
information.
Number 2412
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE mentioned "turnstile jumping" in New York and
suggested that youth who violated curfew may in fact have committed
more serious offenses as well. He agreed to not wanting to clog
the "cinder block and bars" with simple curfew violations.
However, failure to appear in court is a much more serious offense
than a curfew violation. He concurred with exploring the idea of
channeling that down a civil contempt route, so that there would be
increased penalties for being a scofflaw. He said without that,
there might as well be no curfew.
TAPE 97-64, SIDE B
Number 0006
[Begins mid-speech]
MR. BUTTCANE said a truly civil track still provides the
consequence for noncompliance with some social order without the
expense of detention. He advised that he would ask department
employees to look into that and clarify it.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that except for the court's fiscal note, the
others were zero fiscal notes. He asked who would ensure that the
youth do what they are supposed to do.
Number 0030
MS. MAYNARD replied, "I assume the court system."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said normally, fines go through the court
clerk, who keeps track of those.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said his question related to Section 6 and the
ability to do community work.
MS. MAYNARD responded, "Actually, some judges already assign
community work, although evidently you can't mandate it. But some
of them do. Judge Froehlich here in Juneau has assigned community
work to some kids, and they find that those kids pay more attention
than if ... some parent pays a $250 fine."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "But doesn't it require somebody to be with
the person or persons that are doing community work?"
MS. MAYNARD said she did not know.
Number 0070
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained, "Usually what happens is, if
there is court-ordered community work service, it's done through
the ASAP program, and ASAP monitors the amount of work that's done.
So, if someone has an eight-hour work requirement, they would check
in with ASAP; ASAP would send them off to do a job; there would be
some sort of supervision; and they would come back and their eight
hours would be checked off. ASAP would send something back to the
court, and the court would know that the work had been completed.
... That's the norm, and I would imagine that this program
envisions expanding that supervision to tribal councils and some of
the other entities that are designated, some kind of supervision."
Number 0110
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that the Alcohol Safety Action
Program (ASAP) exists only in Anchorage and Fairbanks. Other
communities approach it differently but have some accountability
mechanism. He referred to the desire not to have a warrant result
from failure to appear and asked: Is the parent notified at the
time that the original curfew violation citation is issued?
MS. MAYNARD replied, "Under this, the parent has to come to the
court with the child."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked: Why not change that to an order to
show cause against the parent? He asked whether this kind of
offense could go through a magistrate's office if that was the only
option. He further asked whether "district court" included a
magistrate.
MR. BUTTCANE responded, "That's the way we understand the intent of
this."
Number 0158
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to Representative Porter's
suggestion about an order to show cause. He said although he was
not taking a position because he had not yet thought it through,
there has been much discussion about vicarious liability, making
parents responsible for children. To his knowledge, that had been
extensively litigated. He suggested before they required an order
to show cause, they should explore that.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that over the last four or five
years, the legislature has passed several statutes that go towards
recognizing parental responsibility and increasing parents'
financial responsibility for property damage by children. He does
not believe there is a constitutional issue when the parent is
properly put on notice. He pointed out that an order to show cause
is not a finding. He suggested if it is required that the parent
be notified of the original citation, in effect it is the parent
who fails to come to court, not the child.
Number 0226
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "This says the parent, guardian or legal
custodian." He asked: If it were under the DFYS, would someone
from that agency be there during the sentencing?
MS. MAYNARD replied, "Or the foster parent, if they were in a
foster home."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that person would be held accountable
as well.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied, "Well, what we're talking about is
someone who fails to appear in response to the original citation.
And the parent or guardian is notified and asked to appear with the
child for that appearance. And that's made before the scheduled
time of the appearance. So, to me, it is the parent who is saying,
`I'm not going to be responsible for showing up here,' not the kid.
So, why not, if we're going to take an action because of that
failure to appear, why not take it against the person that's
responsible?"
Number 0296
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said while he was not unsympathetic to that
point, having authored the bill that increased financial
responsibility, it also provided a "hammer" to an incorrigible
young person who wanted to make life difficult for his or her
parents, if the parents would be in contempt for the young person's
failure to appear.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that an order to show cause is not
a criminal charge; it is a "rather forceful subpoena" that tells
them to come before the court to explain why the court should not
presume that the failure to appear should be treated seriously.
Number 0340
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that increased his comfort level
somewhat. However, he believed both parent and child should be
required to appear for a curfew violation, not the parent alone.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would presume that would be the
order.
Number 0368
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she agreed with Representative Porter on
this. However, either these kids are minors and under parental
control or they are not; there must be consistency. Unless a minor
has been emancipated or is under the responsibility of the DFYS,
she believes that "anything done to the kids" must include the
parents.
Number 0440
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that they had just passed a
juvenile crime bill through committee that said the opposite, that
juveniles could be treated as adults. He said the requirement that
parents or guardians be present at all proceedings has to do with
the juveniles' ability to knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily
waive any rights that attach during a proceeding. The focus is on
the juvenile, with the parent or guardian in the position of
ensuring that the juvenile knows what is going on. Traditionally,
the requirement has not been in recognition of parental rights but
rather in recognition of the juvenile's understanding of his or her
rights.
Number 0483
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES also referred to the juvenile crime bill. She
said when a minor commits a crime against a person, that is a
different situation; had they kept the parents involved with
earlier transgressions by that child, that might not have occurred.
But by the time it happens, public safety is a concern, which is
one reason they want to come down harder on those with crimes
against a person.
Number 0516
CHAIRMAN GREEN called an at-ease at 2:22 p.m.
[END OF TAPE 97-64]
TAPE 97-65, SIDE A
Number 0006
CHAIRMAN GREEN called the meeting back to order at 2:30 p.m. He
asked if there were further questions or comments. He then
announced he would hold the bill over and check with the Department
of Law.
Number 0105
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG apologized for being late and asked
whether they had addressed the issue of why only the elderly and
disabled were identified for community work.
MS. MAYNARD responded that it did not mean "only." In rural
communities, people felt this was where services could be used.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it seemed restrictive and he had
concerns about it.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised that the committee would try to hear the
bill again on Monday, April 28.
HB 234 - ABORTIONS UNDER GENERAL RELIEF PROGRAM
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the final item of business was House Bill
No. 234, "An Act relating to assistance for abortions under the
general relief program; and relating to financial responsibility
for the costs of abortions." Two people had testified during that
morning's hearing.
Number 0236
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, sponsor of HB 234, offered a more
detailed background for the bill than presented that morning. He
said over the years, people have been offended by the public's
paying for elective services, especially abortions. Although there
is perhaps less stigma to abortions than previously, people do not
feel they should pay for someone's elective procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said Alaska's laws have been supported by the
federal government, which says a male is responsible for a child
out of wedlock at least until the age of 18. He asked: If males
are to be responsible for a child who is born, why should they not
be responsible for an abortion, especially when it competes against
other medical needs of our society? Representative Martin stated,
"... and in the House, it was about $500,000 we analyze on
abortions that in many cases could be paid for by the male."
Number 0443
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN indicated the legislature had never taken
direct action to pay for abortion; it has been an interpretation by
the attorney general and the Department of Health and Social
Services. The idea was that when there was a shortage of federal
Medicaid money, the state would pick it up under the general relief
medical program. A number of years ago, a department head had
decided to use that money for abortions. Representative Martin
said that offended many people. While some proposed dropping
medical relief money as a complement to Medicaid funds, he said
that is not an answer. Currently, senior citizens are denied
emergency medical and dental services while elective abortions are
covered. He believes that is a poor way to run a medical
assistance program.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN referred to an amendment by Representative
Rokeberg that was not formally before the committee. He expressed
support for it, saying when he first read it, he had been confused;
however, after discussion, he believes it is right on target, as it
makes a rapist or person convicted of incest responsible for paying
for an abortion. Representative Martin stated that he opposes
abortion, period, and is more opposed to state money being used for
elective abortions. Even more offensive is when a person has been
convicted of rape or incest and the state pays the bill. He said
the permanent fund dividend is tapped for many purposes and
Representative Rokeberg's amendment is "very rational."
Number 0680
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN advised that he disagreed with a second
amendment proposed by Representative Rokeberg. Not yet formally
before the committee, that amendment makes the parent or legal
guardian of a minor liable for the cost of an abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN recalled that ten years before, he and other
legislators had received phone calls from a mother who was outraged
when she received a medical bill for her daughter's abortion; prior
to that, she had no idea it had occurred. Expecting
confidentiality, the daughter had gone through the public health
system. He stated, "So, we did work it out that they would stop
charging parents for abortions, especially when they weren't even
consulted or involved."
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said this second amendment touches on the
same thing. Because of the confidentiality issue, he believes it
is a conflict of interest to introduce legislation making the
parent responsible. He discussed personal experience working with
kids in boys' clubs and past attitudes towards out-of-wedlock
pregnancy.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN briefly addressed the fiscal note, which he
acknowledged is high at $5.5 million. He said he disagreed with
"the other half" because Medicaid money cannot be used for
abortions. If anyone pays for it, it should be the male. He
expressed disappointment that no representative from the Department
of Law was present to address legal aspects.
Number 0845
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what the cost of an abortion usually is.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN believes abortions cost between $300 and
$600. He advised that especially in Southeast Alaska, the public
health service flies women to Tacoma, Washington, to use a clinic
there; it is a same-day operation and the travel cost is in
addition to the abortion.
Number 0886
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recalled that the legislature had passed a
bill the previous year relating to identifying the father in the
case of a birth.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN agreed. He stated, "And that's where this
comes from. We're using the same law, Chapter 47, that allows for
that on the federal and state ...."
Number 0911
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that two people make a pregnancy and
therefore both should be responsible to decide whether to keep the
child and to pay for it. She noted that it is possible to
determine paternity for a living child and asked: What do you do
with an aborted fetus if the alleged father denies paternity?
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that DNA could still be taken from an
aborted fetus, to his knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE questioned whether the fiscal note included
that testing. He concurred with Representative James in holding
fathers responsible. He mentioned an Alaskan man who had bragged
about fathering 19 children with 11 different women; he suggested
there should be higher penalties than taking a permanent fund
dividend. He also noted that current law says convicted felons do
not receive dividends. He asked for confirmation of that.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said when he and Representative Rokeberg had
discussed it, it was possible the dividend was already covered;
however, they had wanted to be explicit. He mentioned that there
is a special account for victims of crime.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, acknowledging that the amendments were not
officially before the committee, named the longer amendment
"Amendment 1" and the shorter one "Amendment 2." He asked whether
Representative Martin would support an amendment that made the
parents liable when they had given consent for the abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied, "I would be flexible there, because
... I think that in a case like this here -- in most cases, and
maybe I'm now reminded on the old law where we want to keep it
confidential from the parents. And so now that we've got the
judicial bypass, I still feel uncomfortable in the confidentiality.
If a parent were to go ahead, there's nothing wrong with that at
all, for the parent to -- and perhaps they may not even want their
daughter to get involved in the government aspect of it but just
quietly and cheaper do it through private sources."
Number 1160
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said his point was that if someone could not
afford the abortion but her parents gave consent, should the
parents not be financially responsible?
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN commented that on a given day, the children
of the most wholesome parents could do something out of character.
In a case like this, where the child makes money including
permanent fund dividends, perhaps this would curtail activity.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked: Given the bill that the legislature
is about to pass regarding consent, would that impact this bill as
written? And is there not a need to require confidentiality
between the mother and father of the unborn child?
Number 1380
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that the mother and father would
usually know each other. He said in Chapter 47, which relates to
when the child is born, the mother-to-be is responsible for
disclosing who the father is at the time of birth. He said through
Representative Bettye Davis's law, passed four years ago, that
seemed to work.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that is voluntary, not required.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that when there is an abortion,
there is no birth. He was uncertain how that body of law related
to this. He believes confidentiality should be maintained
regarding the father as well as the mother's parents. He said
apparently Representative Martin does not agree with his theory
that there is either a constitutional or legal requirement to
maintain confidentiality as it relates to the father. He noted
that from earlier testimony, many times the father is unknown.
Number 1487
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked: What would happen if the woman did
not want to release the father's name?
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN likened it to child support enforcement.
Only when applying for Medicaid does it becomes a problem; he did
not know the rationale. If a mother keeps the child, he did not
know at what point the state would deny Medicaid or other welfare.
He said it is predicated on federal law and asked, "If it's okay
under federal law to disclose who the father is, and now state law
has been upheld, then why not for the abortion? And the
confidentiality is right there within the department."
Number 1562
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether Representative Martin
envisioned a situation where the state would compel the woman to
disclose the identity of the father.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said he did not put it beyond the state to
compel anything; it has gone way out of bounds for many things, not
only for childbirth or abortion. He said we can always imagine
government getting out of control, which is why we have legislators
to adjust it.
Number 1598
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that this is an area about which she
has long been concerned. She believes there is equal
responsibility, except in the case of rape or incest. She had
supported trying to identify the father at the time of birth, which
she believes is when the father is most vulnerable. She was not
taking a position on this bill until seeing the other consequences.
However, she supports the concept of the man paying at least half
of the cost. She specified she was willing to divide it in half,
as a joint responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN thanked Representative James and said that is
his sentiment as well.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised that they would lose their quorum shortly.
He suggested taking testimony immediately and addressing the two
amendments later.
NANCY WELLER, Medical Assistance Administrator, Division of Medical
Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services, came forward
to testify. Referring to Section 3 of the bill, she said it
eliminates the ability of the department to fund abortions for low-
income women by placing abortions and related services first on the
priority list in AS 47.25.205. Since 1986, due to budget
reductions relating to the general relief medical program, the
department has not had sufficient financial resources to fund the
first seven items on the existing list.
MS. WELLER advised that the accompanying fiscal note, which she had
prepared, assumes that 80 percent of the number of women currently
receiving abortions would bear the children, with both mothers and
children having medical costs paid for by the state through the
Medicaid program.
MS. WELLER said other sections of the bill, related to financial
responsibility and garnishment of permanent fund dividend checks to
recoup the costs of abortion, would not come into effect because
Section 3 eliminates the ability of the department to fund
abortions.
MS. WELLER advised that the department also has a number of
administrative problems with sections relating to garnishment of
the permanent fund dividends and tracking the recipients' estates.
She explained, "We do not track people's estates and go after their
estates in order to recoup costs. We would not have the ability to
force a putative father to come in for DNA testing in order to
determine whether they would be the father of the unborn child.
Fetal DNA testing can be done by a laboratory in the state; it
would cost $975 plus transportation for the parties; we would have
to set up an administrative procedure for getting the fetal tissue
from the facilities. Many abortions are done outside of the state,
so it would be a significant administrative `adventure' dealing
with setting up these procedures."
Number 1857
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "You said that we're funding many abortions
now that are done outside the state?"
MS. WELLER said yes, particularly in Southeast Alaska, from which
women go to Seattle.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what the relative cost would be for someone to
go to Seattle rather than have it done in Juneau.
MS. WELLER said she believes people in Southeast Alaska go south
because there are no facilities in Juneau. She explained that
there are many different medical procedures, some related to
miscarriages and other "birthing disasters." The range of payments
for these procedures is $365 to $900. When the department pays for
services out of state, they pay the Medicaid rate for the state
where the service is provided; those rates are significantly less
than the fee schedule in Alaska.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the department pays for
transportation.
MS. WELLER said yes. Last year, they paid for 737 abortions at a
cost of $487,000, of which $300,000 was directly related to the
abortions. The remainder was related to transportation and other
services.
Number 1940
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that averaged $500 each. He asked about
the assumption that 80 percent of the women now receiving abortions
would deliver instead. He also asked whether most abortions paid
for by the state are for lower-income people.
MS. WELLER said the state only pays for low-income people.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether Ms. Weller was indicating
that 80 percent of Medicaid-covered women have abortions.
MS. WELLER replied, "No, I'm saying that in preparing the fiscal
note for the bill, the way I came up with this cost is that I was
assuming that of the people who receive an abortion every year, 80
percent of those people would not have an abortion through their
own means or some other means and would become Medicaid-eligible,
and that the Medicaid program would pay for the costs of the birth
and for the child, because children receive automatic Medicaid
eligibility for the first year of life when their mother is on
Medicaid."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for approximately how many births or abortions
the state would expect difficulty in trying to find a father who is
not voluntarily assuming responsibility.
MS. WELLER explained that for Medicaid and public assistance
programs, they operate under federal rules that require the woman
to identify the father of the child in order to receive public
assistance, cash assistance or Medicaid. However, there are
exceptions, such as when a woman fears for her life or there is
abuse.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that is for a small percentage.
MS. WELLER said although she would assume that, she did not know.
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested finding the father really is not the major
problem in most cases.
Number 2085
MS. WELLER responded, "I don't know what percentage would be in
disagreement, because ... when someone applies for cash assistance,
the state has an obligation to go and get a child support order.
Child support enforcement is required to issue an administrative
order for child support for the children whose mothers are
receiving assistance, and then the state and the federal government
share the child support funds that are collected on behalf of the
children that are on assistance, in order to recoup the amount of
money that we're paying for assistance."
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated his understanding that it is a requirement to
determine the father.
MS. WELLER affirmed that it is a requirement, which is there
because the state obtains a child support order against the father
who is not supporting a child on assistance. The department had
never tried to recoup funds for abortions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether exceptions to the required
identification of the father are examined on a case-by-case basis.
He further asked whether there is a statutory or regulatory
provision for those exceptions.
MS. WELLER answered that it is a federal law, with specific
criteria. If the woman can assert that there is danger to her life
or her children because of some abusive situation, that exception
applies; she is not required to prove it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Weller provide the
committee with those references. He restated his desire that the
legislation not breach that confidentiality.
Number 2185
MS. WELLER emphasized that Section 3 would eliminate the ability of
the department to pay for abortions, so that the other sections in
the bill related to responsibility and garnishment of the permanent
fund dividend would become moot.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that the definitions of abortion
under Section 7, found on page 4, would allow them to perform some
procedures.
MS. WELLER responded, "We are allowed under the Medicaid program,
using state and federal funds, to pay for abortion services as a
result of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother." She
said they could claim federal funds, under the Medicaid program, to
pay for abortions in only those circumstances. Under the general
relief medical program, the funding is used to pay for elective
abortions.
MS. WELLER stated, "And as you heard this morning, ... we are
operating under consent decrees since 1993 with the ACLU that we
would not, in enforcing the GRM abortion regulations, require
proving that there was a threat to the woman's life or that she had
a psychological problem with the pregnancy in order for her to get
the funding for the pregnancy." Ms. Weller offered to make a copy
of that consent decree available to the committee.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that was a public record.
MS. WELLER said yes.
Number 2259
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said he was glad to hear that they could
perhaps save 590 lives, out of the 730 lost through abortion. He
said there was not enough money for other needed medical services.
He asked: If it would make the individual responsible for paying
for abortions, wouldn't that free up more money for the dental care
needed for seniors, as well as eyeglasses? He noted that
approximately $500,000 was involved.
MS. WELLER noted that they are different programs.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether there are any requirements
that the department look to the parents or legal guardians for
reimbursement for these procedures. He asked whether an
unemancipated minor could request a Medicaid reimbursement for an
abortion, even though her parents would not be eligible for
Medicaid.
MS. WELLER explained, "A minor can come to the Division of Public
Assistance because she is pregnant and apply for assistance to pay
for an abortion procedure and claim that ... they want their
information to be confidential; they have not told their parents.
And so, in those circumstances, we would not request information on
the parents' financial information in determining the eligibility
of the minor, because we would be invading ... their
confidentiality in order to do that."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked: What if she did not request
confidentiality?
MS. WELLER replied that if the applicant were a minor, she would
have to supply financial information from her parents.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the state would seek
reimbursement from the parents at that time.
MS. WELLER answered that if the family was low-income, the young
woman could qualify for Medicaid assistance. However, if the
family was over-income because of the parents' income, she would be
ineligible.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether that was for the initial
grant. He also asked whether the division would look into that
prior to allowing the procedure.
MS. WELLER explained that a person had to be found eligible prior
to that. The two criteria are that she must be financially
eligible and pregnant.
Number 2409
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said if the parental consent bill passed, then
when a minor asked for financial assistance for an abortion, there
would have to be either judicial bypass or parental consent if the
mother-to-be was under 16 years of age. "So, that takes care of
the confidentiality problem that currently exists," he added.
MS. WELLER replied, "It could impact the confidentiality, yes.
They have to have parental consent." She reiterated that Section
3 of this bill would prevent the department from paying for
abortion procedures altogether.
TAPE 97-65, SIDE B
Number 0006
PETER NAKAMURA, MD, MPH, Director, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health and Social Services, came forward to testify.
He specified he was speaking on the bill just from a health
perspective.
DR. NAKAMURA stated, "We've got a lot to learn from history.
Before access to this procedure was available - and by access,
we're talking about financial access, we're talking about legal
access and we're talking about medical access - we had a period of
time where we had hospitals dedicated to doing nothing more than
taking care of the complications of illegal back-alley abortion
procedures, self-induced abortions. Once we had legal access, and
once we had medical access, we began to bring these numbers down to
the point now where doing an abortion of any type is much safer
than a normal delivery."
DR. NAKAMURA emphasized that financial access is highly
significant. They are talking about a vulnerable population of
women who without financial means would have no access, despite the
legal possibility and medical safety. He concluded by expressing
concern about HB 234 because it decreases that very important
financial access.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked whether this might result in lawsuits to
overturn the law or court pressure to increase funding.
DR. NAKAMURA replied that he could not begin to speculate.
However, he hoped something would happen to allow additional funds
to come forward, to make sure that these highly vulnerable women do
have access.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked why a court would require a voluntary surgery.
Number 0117
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said as he understands current federal law,
because abortion is legal, the state must provide it for people who
cannot afford it; at least, that is Alaska's attorney general's
interpretation. Because of abortion's placement on the priority
list, funding was cut off de facto. He asked whether the courts
would say the legislation was flawed or require the state to put
enough money in or rearrange priorities so that the money goes far
enough down the list to include abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN commented that many states do not provide for
abortions. He suggested that information could be obtained from a
right-to-life organization.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, then, it is not federally mandated. He asked
whether Representative Bunde's concern was that Alaska statute may
have to be revised or that this may be in conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that Alaska's attorney general has said
the state must provide access to all, even those who cannot afford
it. He himself believes people should be able to pay for services
they want, and he opposes elective surgery of any kind being state-
funded. However, if the state supreme court says the state must
provide access, including financial support if necessary, then the
portion of the bill that lists abortion below the cut-off level
would deny access. The bill may be unconstitutional. He suggested
more far-fetched would be that the court would say the legislature
must put more money into the Department of Health and Services
budget so that the money goes far enough to reach that level.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were more questions for Dr.
Nakamura and then called upon Deborah Behr.
Number 0265
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation and
Regulations Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law,
came forward to testify. She specified that although she was a
regulations attorney, she had in the past advised the Medicaid and
general relief medical programs. She was also counsel when then-
Governor Hickel was preparing his abortion regulations and had done
considerable research in this area.
MS. BEHR noted that this is a highly complex area of law and that
answers differ in various states. When the federal Medicaid
program first began, Medicaid funding for abortions was fairly
wide-open. However, the U.S. Congress cut that back so it was only
covered in cases of rape and incest, with occasional coverage when
the life of the mother was in danger.
MS. BEHR explained, "It's usually done by a rider on the
appropriation bills in Congress." There had been major lawsuits
all over the U.S. regarding whether Congress could discriminate
against poor people. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that this
was a benefit, that Congress can decide what level of benefit to
fund and that it was fine under federal law.
MS. BEHR advised that there had been a second wave of case
decisions in states having a constitutional right to privacy.
Noting that the case decisions in this area were different, she
offered to provide case cites later.
MS. BEHR explained that generally, decisions in states with a
constitutional right of privacy, as Alaska has, deemed that the
state does not have to fund any service. However, if it chooses to
fund a service and enters into a zone of what they call `privacy,'
it must do so with neutrality. For example, if the state funds
pregnancy services, it must fund the other side of the coin, which
is abortion services.
MS. BEHR advised that there were decisions in Connecticut and a
couple of other states that she could provide if requested.
MS. BEHR recounted that when she was assisting then-Governor Hickel
in drafting regulations, she was looking at options. She said,
"And one of the things that most of the states in those areas said,
at minimum, you've got to cover therapeutic abortions." She noted
that this bill does not cover therapeutic abortions; it only takes
into account the possible death of the mother. "So it truly does
not address those kinds of cases," she added.
MR. BEHR said at the time they put out the regulations, they knew
they were into a gray area in the state of Alaska, which had no
case decisions in this area. "The regulations came out, and we
were in court within hours," she said. She noted that legislative
counsel looked at those. Ms. Behr has memos in her files from 1992
that essentially say the regulations put in by then-Governor Hickel
were unconstitutional. She stated, "And I would suggest strongly
that you have your own counsel look at this bill and see if her
conclusion has changed, ... based on those decisions." Ms. Behr
asked whether she could provide further information.
Number 0373
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked about the case cites Ms. Behr had offered to
obtain.
MS. BEHR stated, "Yes, I can speak with your counsel later and help
you on it. It's a difficult area of the law; it really is."
CHAIRMAN GREEN said as he understood it, the state had no
obligation in this area. However, if it chose to act, there was an
obligation to cover both sides of the coin.
MS. BEHR said yes, that is the basic problem of the question with
a constitutional right of privacy. She noted that at least one
constitutional amendment was proposed to try to stop state funding
for abortions but did not pass the electorate. "So I'm fairly
certain that this type of bill would not pass constitutional muster
in this state," she advised.
Number 0412
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN referred to a case in 1982, which he said was
brought before the people but did not pass. He asked: Even though
Ms. Behr says the state has a responsibility to finance abortions,
are they limited as to the source of the revenue?
MS. BEHR said she was confused. She stated that the Division of
Medical Assistance cannot fund any abortion without an
appropriation. "So, in that way, the state of Alaska has to fund
abortions, because it has to be done through an appropriation
process," she added.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN asked: "And if we are appropriating money
from the parent, from the father who is responsible for the
pregnancy, what's wrong with that?"
MS. BEHR noted that she had been a child support attorney. She
stated, "And it's very difficult establishing paternity of a child.
It's very difficult, once you establish paternity of a child, doing
collection of it. Oftentimes, the amount of money that you're
talking about, in the case of an abortion, is the cost of
collection, the cost of court action and the costs of DNA
[testing]. I'm not sure that they'd necessarily net out."
Number 0462
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked about the difficulty of determining who the
father is.
MS. BEHR said given that people applying for general relief medical
assistance are low-income, it is a better than 50/50 chance that
litigation would be required to establish paternity. At very early
stages, it perhaps could be done through DNA testing, without
necessarily going through a whole court process. Although a man
could admit to paternity, he certainly did not have to.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said earlier testimony indicated they could
determine who the father was.
MS. BEHR explained that when a woman applies for public assistance,
she has to name a person, whether she is right or wrong. She noted
that in some cases, the woman is unsure and there must be DNA
testing of several people to determine paternity.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said with child support enforcement, there
has been much more success than anticipated. He said all the fears
being brought up now were brought up earlier about "forcing the
poor woman to disclose who the father was." He suggested the cost
involved in finding out who the father is has diminished
significantly. He said as to collection, Alaskans receive
permanent fund dividends and it is easy to put a lien against that
check.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "If they can prove that that's the father."
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN concurred. He restated that collection is
minor. He said one important reason why the child support
enforcement law is working well is that the state has an incentive.
Last year, the federal government gave the state a $2.1-million
incentive because of the success rate in finding the fathers. He
commented, "You can't say that 80 percent of the kids will be
welfare cases when they're having such good success now in finding
who the fathers are and make them -- take them off of welfare."
Number 0638
CARLA TIMPONE, Lobbyist for the Alaska Women's Lobby, came forward
to testify. The Alaska Women's Lobby is unequivocally opposed to
any piece of legislation that limits a woman's right to access a
safe and legal abortion. In addition, they have specific concerns
about HB 234.
MS. TIMPONE noted that under the bill, a woman applying for general
relief medical (GRM) assistance to pay for an abortion must name
the putative father, unless the department determines that she has
good cause not to do so. The definition of `good cause' as
outlined by Representative Rokeberg's amendment includes rape or
incest. Ms. Timpone stated, "Quite frankly, the Women's Lobby
would like to see that definition not just be limited to rape or
incest but to be left the way the language is currently in the
bill, because we feel it's broader. There are many women who are
victims of domestic violence who find themselves in life-
threatening situations. And we would not like them to be excluded
from the `good cause' definition by limiting it to rape or incest."
MS. TIMPONE continued, "The woman then has to assign to the
department the right of recovery to the funds to pay for this
service. We're concerned - and we don't think that it's outside
the realm of possibility that this could happen - that a woman will
name a putative father, of course he won't be found, because that
is far and away most often the case, the woman's PFD ...."
CHAIRMAN GREEN interjected with a question: "You say far and away;
is that because the person has gone or that this is a fictitious
name or ....?
MS. TIMPONE replied, "I would say either." Acknowledging that she
is not a medical expert, she said she assumes fetal tissue would
have to be used for paternity tests, which would occur after the
abortion. That would be unlike paternity establishment used by the
Child Support Enforcement Division of the Department of Revenue,
which is usually a blood test because it involves two living
people.
MS. TIMPONE said like the Child Support Enforcement Division, that
also assumes the Division of Public Assistance would have at its
disposal a team of employees whose only job is to locate absent
parents. However, she does not believe the latter agency has that.
MS. TIMPONE explained, "We've heard testimony that when a woman -
a single woman - comes in to apply for public assistance, she must
give them the name of the father. And that is absolutely true.
However, that pretty much ends the responsibility of the Division
of Public Assistance. They get the name, they pass it on to Child
Support Enforcement and Child Support Enforcement picks it up from
there."
MS. TIMPONE continued, "At least the way I read the bill, that is
not going to be the case here. ... Because the bill does not say
that anybody else is responsible, I'm assuming that the Division of
Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services, would
be responsible for doing that location. And I am not sure that
they have staff that do that or even qualify to do that."
MS. TIMPONE continued, "So, the woman has to assign her right of
recovery to the department. If the father cannot be found and/or
made to pay, then the woman's PFD is garnished. What happens,
then, if the father is located? The woman can't recover a portion
of what was taken from her, financially, to pay for the procedure,
because she has assigned her right of recovery to the department.
... It doesn't say that that assignment is null and void once, and
if, he is found. So, in other words, a woman's PFD is garnished to
pay for the entire amount of the procedure. Dad suddenly turns up
or she finds him. She is prohibited from seeking half the cost of
the procedure, because she has assigned her right of recovery to
the Department of Health and Social Services."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked why that would preclude the woman from getting
back half from the father.
MS. TIMPONE replied, "Because she has assigned the right of
recovery of the payment to the department."
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "For the permanent fund dividend. So, she
gives that up and then they find me, why can't I repay her?"
MS. TIMPONE answered, "You could voluntarily. But if you don't
choose to voluntarily, she has no legal recourse to try to get it,
because she has assigned her right of recovery to the Department of
Health and Social Services. So, we have a concern about that."
MS. TIMPONE continued, "We also have some concerns about the nature
of singling out this particular procedure because it is an elective
procedure, or, in any case, that's how it has been characterized.
I believe that there is a possibility that there are other
circumstances under which treatment is paid for under GRM for
people who suffer a medical condition or an injury as a result of
a situation over which they had control. For instance, if a
homeless alcoholic falls asleep on the curbside and is run over by
the garbage truck and requires medical treatment as a result of his
choice to drink himself into stupefaction, I might have some
problems with the state's paying for treatment of that person."
MS. TIMPONE continued, "I think that we start to go down a slippery
slope when we start to prohibit some medical procedures because we
have moral or religious problems with that particular kind of
procedure, because there's a wide spectrum of procedures that
different ones of us could have moral or religious problems with.
Someone who is GRM-eligible ... steals a bike, takes a ride without
a helmet, suffers a head injury. Is the state obligated to treat
that person? Some of us might have a problem with that. So, we
have a concern in that regard."
MS. TIMPONE continued, "And while I understand that what the
sponsor is trying to get to, and don't disagree at all, is an
equality of responsibility, I think, then, we also have to address
equality of class, for lack of a better word. The bill is not a
referendum or a statement on abortion. It's a statement on who we
feel deserves to have one. It's okay to have an abortion if you
can afford to pay for it out of your pocket; it's not okay to have
an abortion if the state has to pay for it. I think we begin to
get into a whole other set of issues there that relate primarily to
class, and we certainly have some concern with that as well."
Number 1005
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested there is a class distinction anyway,
regarding insurance, for example, that pays for a private room or
does not.
MS. TIMPONE replied, "Well, to a degree. You're still receiving
the medical service. You may just be receiving it in nicer
surroundings."
CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to Ms. Timpone's discussion of an inebriate
that gets run over by a truck and questioned her willingness to
provide one service over the other.
MS. TIMPONE clarified that if the state pays in one case, she
believes it should pay in the other.
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested the reverse may be true: If it does not
pay in one case, perhaps it should not pay in the other.
MS. TIMPONE emphasized that there should be equality.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were questions, then requested
that Ms. Timpone answer future questions from committee members.
(HB 234 was held over.)
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1135
CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:44 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|