Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
02/29/2008 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 |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 29, 2008
1:14 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
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."
- MOVED CSHB 364(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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
02/28/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/29/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JANA KREOFSKY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
AUTUMN LEACH, Attorney at Law
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
MEGH BARNETT
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
KATY SANDERS
Copper Center, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
ROBIN FORD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
JOLENE FIRMIN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
CHRISTINE FONTAINE
Outreach Coordinator
Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic (KBFPC)
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
SARAH FERRENCY
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
GERAN TARR, Director
Alliance for Reproductive Justice
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
SUE JOHNSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
MARILYN RUSSELL
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
KAREN L. LEWIS, Executive Director
Alaska Right to Life
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 364.
DAVID EASTMON, JR.
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 364.
DOUGLAS KIDWELL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 364.
JAN WHITEFIELD, M.D.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 364, expressed
concerns and responded to questions.
SHELLY BOYER-WOOD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 364.
CHRISTOPHER REYNOLDS, Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
AMY DEVEREUX
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 364.
NANCY SCHEETZ-FREYMILLER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke against HB 364.
ROBERTA N. HUNTER
Salcha, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 364.
KEVIN G. CLARKSON, Esq., Attorney at Law
Brena, Bell & Clarkson, PC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
proposed amendments to HB 364.
PAMELA FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes
Legislative Legal and Research Division
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the drafter of HB 364,
Jean Mischel.
CLOVER SIMON, MSW, Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Planned Parenthood of Alaska (PPA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a comment during discussion of
HB 364.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:14:02 PM. Representatives Lynn,
Dahlstrom, Coghill, and Ramras were present at the call to
order. Representatives Holmes, Gruenberg, and Samuels arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 364 - NOTICE & CONSENT FOR MINOR'S ABORTION
1:14:53 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 indicated that he supports the bill, particularly
in an amended form.
1:19:53 PM
JANA KREOFSKY relayed that she is a parent and would be
testifying against HB 364. She said that should her daughter
ever find herself in the really difficult situation of having to
deal with an unplanned pregnancy, she hopes that her daughter
will feel comfortable coming to her; "but the reality is, for
her and for a lot of other children, they won't, and that's why
I'm here - ... to try to protect her right to make those choices
for herself." She added: "I feel like it's already a horribly
difficult situation to deal with, and I don't think it's fair to
add more; I'm here to protect her right to make decisions for
herself that are, in the end, really going to affect her, her
life, and her body."
1:20:48 PM
AUTUMN LEACH, Attorney at Law, after relaying that she is a
former legal advocate for victims of domestic violence (DV) and
sexual assault, said she opposes HB 364 because it would force a
minor to ask an abusive parent for consent to terminate a
pregnancy.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM reiterated testimony heard the day
before about a study of 490 girls who sought judicial bypass in
Massachusetts.
1:23:44 PM
MEGH BARNETT said she opposes HB 364. Growing up in "the
valley" and in Talkeetna, she remarked, had she, as a teenager,
needed to terminate a pregnancy but had to first tell her
parents, she would have looked for ways to terminate the
pregnancy herself, rather than get her parents' consent; she
surmised that a lot of girls would do the same because they
would find it easier than talking to their parents. She
concluded by saying: "I urge you to think about keeping
abortion safe, and this bill would make abortion not safe
because if a teenager doesn't want to tell their parents [in
order] to get consent to have a safe, legal abortion, I fear
that they'll look for alternatives to do so. Again, I oppose
this bill."
MS. BARNETT, in response to a question, said she has a wonderful
relationship with her parents but doesn't feel it's necessary to
share information with them about her sexual health.
1:25:36 PM
KATY SANDERS said she opposes HB 364. She relayed that she has
a concern with forcing teenagers who are in abusive situations
to go to their parents; regardless that there might only be a
few such teenagers, they still need to be protected.
Furthermore, teenagers who come from abusive homes are not
always willing to disclose that they are from abusive homes, and
this should be taken into account when considering any survey
results. She explained that in the rural part of the state that
she is from, a magistrate serves the whole "Copper valley," and
so if she had to go to that magistrate to seek a judicial bypass
by admitting that she is from an abusive home, everyone would
know about it, and she feels that that would jeopardize her
safety. The bill is not addressing what ought to be done to
protect girls in rural Alaska, or how such girls could go about
obtaining judicial bypass.
1:26:57 PM
ROBIN FORD said she would be speaking against HB 364. She said
she believes the bill is unconstitutional because the Alaska
Supreme Court has already ruled on a similar [law] and found it
to be unconstitutional.
1:28:54 PM
JOLENE FIRMIN said she opposes HB 364. She relayed that her
parents have been very involved her life; that she is very
grateful for everything they've done for her; that she is from
Fort Yukon - a committee of 500; and that when she was 14, she
decided to move to Fairbanks to get a better education, and did
so, with the support of her parents. She explained that she did
not ask her parents for permission when she decided to start
taking birth control, and wouldn't have asked her parents for
permission if she had decided to seek an abortion. The option
proposed by the bill would have required her to seek a judicial
bypass. But in Fort Yukon, the magistrate is her friend's
brother, so her confidentiality wouldn't have been protected,
and both she and the magistrate would have been placed in an
uncomfortable position. Keeping things confidential in a town
of 500 people isn't possible, she relayed.
1:30:25 PM
CHRISTINE FONTAINE, Outreach Coordinator, Kachemak Bay Family
Planning Clinic (KBFPC), explained that the KBFPC is a small,
private, nonprofit reproductive-health clinic that's been in
existence for about 20 years but is not an abortion provider.
Instead, the KBFPC provides other services similar to those
provided by Planned Parenthood. She shared that when young
women call the KBFPC seeking birth control or pregnancy testing,
one of the first questions they often have is whether their call
will be kept confidential from their parents. Currently, staff
at the KBFPC can answer that calls are kept confidential unless
some form of abuse is going on. These young women are calling
the KBFPC because they are either already sexually active or
will be soon, and they express relief that someone can
confidentially provide them information about the options they
have.
MS. FONTAINE said that when a young woman comes in for a
pregnancy test, she also receives counseling because entities
that receive Title X funding are mandated to inform and counsel
clients about abstinence, and are mandated to suggest that they
speak with their parents. After noting that she is a nursing
student and has worked in the acute care unit at the hospital,
she said she has never met any medical provider that wouldn't
want parental involvement; "there is no agenda there to hide
things from the parent - no one wants that." So if a client
says she is afraid or worried about discussing the issue with
her parents, and staff determines that abuse is not an issue,
staff will encourage the client to bring a parent along for her
next visit.
MS. FONTAINE noted that in addition, the client then also has an
opportunity to receive other healthcare services such as
screening for breast and cervical cancer, and testing for
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Ms. Fontaine said she is
opposed to HB 364 because if staff can't ensure that
confidentiality will be maintained once a young woman decides to
seek an abortion because she will have to obtain parental
consent, then staff would be required to tell the client that,
with the result likely being that the young woman will hang up
the phone and never come in.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked Ms. Fontaine whether the KBFPC would be
capable of instructing a girl regarding a judicial bypass
procedure.
MS. FONTAINE said the KBFPC would be capable of doing so, but
pointed out that if the girl is in an abusive situation and is
seeking a judicial bypass for that reason, regardless of what
the KBFPC does, that girl is unlikely to have a lot of support
or resources - she will still be on her own and perhaps might
even see KBFPC staff as the enemy. So although the KBFPC is
capable of providing information on the judicial bypass
procedure, she asked the committee to not force the KBFPC to be
part of that system; "I'm asking that you help the healthcare
community do what their job is, [which] is to provide safe
health care."
CHAIR RAMRAS characterized pregnant teenagers as one of the most
vulnerable segments of society, and acknowledged that it will be
hard to find a solution.
MS. FONTAINE, in response to a question regarding the definition
of the term "sexual health" offered her belief that although it
is a private thing that can't be legislated, a person can be
educated so as to be able to make better choices.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked Ms. Fontaine whether she believes
that parents should be financially responsible for medical
treatments pertaining to their daughter's sexual health.
MS. FONTAINE said she is not sure she would be able to
accurately answer a question about a parent's financial
responsibility. She offered her belief, however, that there
will be very few cases in Alaska in which a minor seeks an
abortion without some form of parental involvement, since most
girls are being counseled to seek parental involvement, and that
involvement is being provided safely. Again, if parental
consent is required, girls will seek to abort in other ways.
She relayed that young women have told her that before they came
into the KBFPC, they have thrown themselves down staircases or
have had someone punch them in the lower abdomen or have taken
chemicals in order to induce an abortion. These activities are
far more risky than just being sexually active. Also, sometimes
these pregnant girls are involved with older men. So she is
most concerned, she relayed, about the health care that these
girls are getting and about their physical safety.
1:39:43 PM
MS. FONTAINE, in response to a question, said that abortion is a
health issue for the pregnant woman.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned whether some girls might need
some guidance.
MS. FONTAINE agreed, and said she sees that that might be the
intention of the bill, but pointed out no health practitioner
tells a girl not to bother telling her parents - that's not what
happens in the real world. "We want those parents involved, and
when a young woman says to me, 'Oh, I can never tell my
parents,' well, that's not true - she could, she does, it works
out," she remarked. There is no intention to take away parental
involvement; instead, the issue is that there are situations in
which parental involvement isn't available. For example, there
are a lot of young, homeless girls in Homer - their parents
aren't going to be found, and those girls won't get involved
with the legal system, so they are at risk of taking matters
into their own hands and attempting to abort without anyone's
help or guidance.
1:42:12 PM
SARAH FERRENCY said she would be speaking in opposition to
HB 364. She mentioned that she lives in Sitka, is a parent, and
teaches at-risk children at Sitka's alternative school, and
shared her belief that in a democracy - although the will of the
majority is followed - "we also owe it to the minority to
protect them." Therefore, regardless that the number of girls
who can't obtain parental consent might be few, those few
deserve protection. She said that if her daughter found herself
pregnant, she would hope that her daughter would decide to speak
with her, but her daughter might not, and although that would be
disappointing, she would view that as her own failure in
maintaining a relationship with her daughter. She noted that as
written, the bill requires a girl to either obtain parental
consent from an abusive parent or report that parent for the
abuse, which will result in the parent being prosecuted; there
is nothing in between, and the girl can't simply slow down and
take the time to decide whether she wants to prosecute her
parent. In the circle of domestic violence, the trend is that
it is the victim's right to decide whether and when to
prosecute, and this right is being taken away by the bill.
MS. FERRENCY referred to the documentation of abuse required by
the bill - a notarized document from someone who has personal
knowledge of the abuse. Does that mean that the person has to
have been present when the abuse occurred? Furthermore, as soon
as such documentation is provided to the doctor, he/she will
report that abuse because doctors are mandated reporters, and as
soon as the documentation is provided to the court, it will have
to prosecute the parent. There is no leeway here, she remarked,
so she can see situations in which a girl will instead choose to
seek a "back alley abortion" - an unsafe abortion. Even when
children have decent relationships with their parents, their
parents sometimes hold very strong views, she noted, and relayed
that when she was 14, she had a friend whose parents had made it
very clear to her friend that if she ever got pregnant she would
no longer be welcome at home; when her friend did get pregnant,
she wanted to have an abortion so she that she wouldn't become
homeless - there just aren't many options available in Sitka for
homeless pregnant girls. Someone from such a family who wants
stay in school and who wants to stay with her family really
doesn't have many options.
MS. FERRENCY - with regard to the concern that parents might be
held financially responsible for any medical complications that
arise from an abortion they didn't consent to - pointed out that
a baby is a guaranteed financial responsibility/liability, and
that the chances of medical complications arising from a safe
and legal abortion are very small. The likelihood of parents
being subject to financial liability for a safe and legal
abortion is least, is more for a "back alley abortion," and is
highest still for carrying a baby to term. In response to a
comment, she offered that her understanding of the current legal
system is that the woman - who has already been born - has
rights, and that the fetus's rights are much more limited.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he doesn't view a baby as a liability
but rather as an asset.
MS. FERRENCY pointed out that she was speaking in terms of
financial liability.
1:48:50 PM
GERAN TARR, Director, Alliance for Reproductive Justice, relayed
that she would be speaking in opposition to HB 364. She said:
As I was thinking about what I wanted to say, I was
thinking [that] I can't really come up with something
to change some of your minds. I spent five years
working in this building and we've talked about these
issues time and time again, so I know where we stand
and ... I'm always searching for that middle ground
and where can we come together. And so I guess why
I'm disappointed is that we're having this
conversation again, and we're not having the
conversation about increasing Denali KidCare or fixing
the foster care problems or providing better State
support for children in need. And I feel like if we
could focus on those issues and do a better job in our
... role as advocates, and work with the government to
accomplish those goals and things that I think we can
agree on and have common ground on, then I think we
could spend a lot less time arguing over these issues
that are so divisive and really ... hit at people's
core values. And I want to be respectful of people's
values and I think we all do.
So I do oppose the bill for many of the reasons stated
earlier, but I also hope that we can consider a new
approach as we move forward - and I know there are
other pieces of legislation here in the body that
address some [of] those issues I just mentioned, and I
think that it would be a day to celebrate if we could
also get those things happening and see what the
effects of those pieces of legislation were - and that
we might find ..., with a little better support and
more forward-thinking, ... that some of these other
issues go away. So I oppose this bill but I do
support some of those other bills, and I'll be
watching, and you'll probably hear from me on those
pieces of legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he understands the concern about Denali
KidCare and the other programs, but opined that HB 364 is
primarily about parental rights and the potential overreaching
of the courts.
MS. TARR said she was mentioning those other issues because she
sees them as interrelated, and sees some family problems as
being related to those "sort of systemic issues" that mean
"we're not supporting our families and our women and our
children." She said she feels, therefore, that there is a need
for a comprehensive approach - sort of an overhaul - "to the way
we address these issues," and maybe that paradigm shift would
open a new door through which to move forward.
1:53:46 PM
SUE JOHNSON relayed that she is a mother and would like to think
that her child would and does come to her to discuss important
issues affecting his life, adding that one can call that good
parenting or one could call it good luck. She went on to say:
I oppose [HB 364] ... for many reasons but mainly
because it won't force good communication between
parents and teens, and the [Alaska Supreme Court] has
also found a similar bill [to be] unconstitutional.
... I would like to share a story, though, about how
parental notification has unintended consequences
sometimes. As a young girl, I had ... a very close
friend - her name's Rita - and we played sports
together all through grade school and part of high
school, and we were 16. She fell head over heels in
love, thought she'd found her soul mate, and she
became pregnant, and she was very happy about it, and
so she had plans to get married and have a family. So
she announced it to her parents - ... that she was
going to get married to this boy and have a family -
and ... [they said], "Oh no you're not."
So the first thing that happened was that her parents
threatened her not to tell anybody else about this
secret, and then she was told that she would not [get
to] have the child. Back then, abortion was not
legal, and so there was no choice for the family but
to take her to a back alley ... [abortionist]. Her
parents were ... very active in the church and the
community, and so this event was a closely-guarded
secret. Rita's friends didn't know that this was
going on, but we noticed that she was out sick from
school for long stretches of time and we were told
that she was staying [with] a sick aunt in another
state. ...
Her family ... [were] loving, devout Christians;
however things like sex were seldom if ever talked
about in the home. And we didn't see Rita for another
year or two, and, when we did, we hardly recognized
her. She looked old and she was using a cane, and
that was the result of the illegal abortion by some
back alley quack who botched the procedure and ruined
her body and ruined her life. Since Rita was not able
to make her own decision about her body, she lost the
love of her life, she lost her family, and she lost
her friends. So I guess the moral of the story is ...
that often, when parents force kids to go in the
opposite direction ... from where they want to go, ...
unintended consequences do occur.
MS. JOHNSON, in conclusion, said she hopes the committee will
vote to not pass the legislation.
1:57:54 PM
MARILYN RUSSELL relayed that she is a retired teacher, is the
mother of two adult children, was a foster mother for over 12
years, and is opposed to HB 364. By being a foster mother, she
remarked, she learned that by the age of 14, a person is formed
and pretty set with regard to intelligence and values - though
perhaps lacking in experience - and is capable of making major
life decisions affecting herself/himself. She added:
Believe me, at 13-, 14-, 15-years-old, ... the foster
kids I've seen are savvy, and they've been through the
ringer, and they've been forced to grow up fast, and
if they've [come] ... from an abusive home - as many
that I've seen have - they certainly don't want to go
home for permission, and I think that they are capable
of making a decision in this case.
1:59:44 PM
KAREN L. LEWIS, Executive Director, Alaska Right to Life, after
relaying that her organization has over 48,000 households in its
database, said she supports HB 364, and offered her belief that
"the American people as a whole" also support such legislation.
She also offered her belief that there are polls illustrating
that more than 75 percent of people believe that they should be
involved in their minor child's decisions - especially ones with
"this type of impact" - and that over 90 percent of women who've
had an abortion have experienced a negative psychological
impact. If a girl were to make such a life-changing decision as
getting an abortion, the girl would then carry the full burden
of that decision, but when the parents are brought into the
decision-making process, the girl doesn't have to carry the
entire burden herself. With regard to the point that there may
be some minors who [fear for their safety if they attempt to get
parental consent for an abortion], she opined that that's what
the judicial bypass is for. In conclusion, she offered a quote
from Thomas Jefferson - "The care of human life and happiness,
and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good
government" - and said she agrees with that statement.
2:02:28 PM
DAVID EASTMON, JR., relayed that he has served as both an
emergency medical technician (EMT) and a police officer, and
that he is speaking on behalf of the children of Alaska,
particularly on behalf of young girls. He encouraged the
committee to consider the impact that HB 364 will have on those
young girls. He went on to say:
When I was first trained as a police officer, and then
later as an EMT, I remember ... - [in] going through
the training, learning the relevant laws - the initial
confusion that my classmates and I had concerning when
it was proper to provide medical care to a minor in
Alaska. Minors, of course, cannot normally give
consent for us to provide them care even if we might
judge it to be in their best interest for us to treat
them. But if a parent determines that the care would
not be in the child's best interest, they, of course,
have the legal responsibility to make that decision on
behalf of their child. But of course there are
exceptions.
For example, what about when a parent cannot or will
not make a decision? Then, of course, the child can
give consent. What about if the parent can't be found
or they're unavailable? Again, the child or the
minor, in that case, is able to give consent. Other
exceptions would be if the minor is legally
emancipated and the State looks upon them as an adult.
Of course at that point they are entitled to give
consent on their own behalf. Of course if they are
legally married, if they're no longer living at home
with their parents, again, they can give consent.
Each of these exceptions have been granted in the
interests of the minor, and I believe they should be
maintained; I believe that they are good exceptions to
the general principle that a parent is the one who's
responsible for making some of the more weighty,
lifelong - and [in] some cases, decisions that can
never be reversed - on behalf of ... a young daughter.
Personally, I believe that the crux of the debate
before us is not so much on the matter of abortion as
it is on the definition of the word "minor". When
this legislation passes, what effect will it have on
the meaning of the word "minor"? Will it add
substance to the word, or do you think it will perhaps
contribute to diminishing its meaning? We have the
designation, "minor" not as a way of ... designating
someone a lower class of citizen or a lower human
being or less of a person. They, of course, are just
as much a person as any other of us. However, knowing
that, and knowing that they have not the life
experience and the ability to make some of those
decisions maturely and with wisdom, we've left that to
their parents.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that under the bill, an emancipated
minor, or a minor who is a member of the armed services, or a
minor who is married, or, he added, "a minor who is
independently caring for themselves" would be allowed to obtain
an abortion without parental consent. He offered his belief
that the court has ruled that if the child so chooses, her
parents are forbidden to know [that she is seeking an abortion].
2:06:40 PM
DOUGLAS KIDWELL relayed that he is a parent and that he strongly
supports HB 364 "and the importance it holds," which is ensuring
that parents maintain the necessary awareness regarding their
dependents. He added:
The mere thought [that] a parent does not have the
right to keep abreast of what's going on with a
dependent is appalling to me. This isn't a religious
issue - though it can definitely apply - but one that
clearly undermines the authority a parent holds
regarding their children, especially when it is a
"dependent" issue. And that's one of the key words,
here, is "dependent." The minor, in this case, is a
dependent of the parent; the parent has the ultimate
responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of the child,
of the minor - in this case, we're talking about a
female minor - and to go through the process of
educating, instructing, guiding, instilling the very
principles that they hold, into the minor, there, to
properly prepare them to venture out into the outside
world. And it's hard enough as it is - the parents
have to fight through a lot of this stuff that our
youth are exposed to. And it's even worse when you
have a judge, or society as a whole, that states that
a female minor has the right not to inform her parents
if she's pregnant, and can go and obtain an abortion
on her own. So, in short, this teaches our youth not
to honor and respect their parents and allow them to
go through the decision-making. ... This is
unacceptable to me.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
2:08:58 PM
JAN WHITEFIELD, M.D., indicated that [as an
obstetrician/gynecologist,] he has concerns about HB 364 because
it pertains to people who come to him for services. He
elaborated:
One of the concerns I have is that the [proposed] law
says that I can use my clinical judgment regarding a
concern for an immediate threat or serious risk to the
life or physical health of a pregnant minor, and from
my point of view that's a rather ambiguous statement.
It doesn't, for instance, say whether psychological or
psychiatric health can be considered part of physical
health. That's a debatable question even among
healthcare providers, let alone attorneys. And if I
make a decision to do a pregnancy termination and, in
my best judgment, I think it's what's best for the
person under 17, and if that is next challenged by a
parent, then how is my judgment then evaluated?
Does the court bring in someone to evaluate my
judgment? And two people who are equally trained ...
can look at a situation and come up with different
answers as to whether an abortion would or would not
have been appropriate. And if I am challenged and I
lose, then what ... have I lost? Have I been fined?
Do I lose my license? Do I go to jail? And those are
all things that are very real issues for me to think
about as a person who provides terminations.
DR. WHITEFIELD continued:
The issue of a minor who chooses to get corroboration
for abuse, as many other people have noted, that's
really onerous. I would imagine that there are many
times that a teen could not find a sibling over 21,
law enforcement officers, someone from [the Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS)], a grandparent,
or a stepparent who could vouch for them. So does
that mean that the person [who] suffers abuse but
doesn't have one of those five sources is excluded
from judiciary bypass? In terms of notification to
the parent, one of the things it spells out - it's
fairly specific - is that I would call, for no less
than five calls spaced no less than two hours apart.
... In one day that would be a call at 8 o'clock, 10
o'clock, 12 o'clock, 2 o'clock, and 4 o'clock - and I
make those calls. When you couple that with the task
of trying to figure out if it's an appropriate
telephone number, ... those are pretty tough goals to
meet. I would challenge most of you, in your busy
schedules that you are running right now in Juneau, to
walk out at 8:00, 10:00, 12:00, and 2:00, and 4:00 ...
to do something like this. I mean, it certainly is a
significant task.
DR. WHITEFIELD went on to say:
There is an option where if a minor comes in and can
demonstrate sufficient maturation, ... they can try to
go through the process without parental ...
notification and consent. Well, who decides that this
person's mature enough? Is this a decision that the
courts make? Do they hire special people who come in
to do a, quote, "maturation appraisal" to decide
whether or not the teen is mature enough? I mean,
it's not a very well-defined sort of bypass.
And lastly, as I went through the judicial bypass, I
tried to figure out, from the day that a claimant
comes in and says 'I want to exercise judicial
bypass,' if the maximum time is used at each step
along the way, by my calculations, from the time a
claimant puts in a request for judicial bypass, to
when it comes out the back end by the [Alaska] Supreme
Court, that can take 11 working days. Now, 11 working
days is one thing, but when somebody's pregnant, the
days aren't "working days" - they're days - and 11
working days can translate into no less than 15
calendar days.
In terms of supplying a pregnancy termination, if
there's a delay of two weeks, that increases the risk
[for the person who's getting the] pregnancy
termination. ... And so the bypass procedure is not
only onerous, because the person who comes in to be a
claimant has to be pretty well together when they walk
in the front door, but coming out the other end, they
have now been set back about two weeks and a day.
2:13:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, referring to [an article from Time]
titled "What Makes Teens Tick?", offered her understanding that
it highlights a study which illustrates that the human brain
continues to develop well past puberty, with one of the last
developments being to the part of the brain - the prefrontal
cortex - that results in an increased ability to plan, to set
priorities, to organize thoughts, to suppress impulses, and to
weigh the consequences of one's actions.
DR. WHITEFIELD said it would be nice if sexual maturity were
delayed until the prefrontal cortex of the brain finished
maturing, but the reality is that teenagers will get pregnant
regardless of what such studies illustrate. He went on to say:
My findings in my office are very similar to what is
found in Planned Parenthood, and that is that the
majority of teens who walk in here to ask for
pregnancy termination fortunately come with a parent.
And I'm always thankful for [that] because, for me, I
can't imagine a better support for a child than a
parent. But I've also seen cases where there isn't a
good support for the child - the parent is not
necessarily good support. And of course one would
say, 'Well, that's what the whole process of the
judicial bypass is," and I laud you for putting the
judicial bypass in, and not only putting it in, but to
try to change the dates from, in some cases, five days
to three days, and, [in] some cases, four days to
three days.
But the reality will always remain that there's going
to be some teens who will not have a safe place for
them to be able to go to, to talk about this
situation, and for those, the bypass, I think, is
important but I don't think that the bypass is
functional. That doesn't take away from my concern,
as a provider, that if I exercise my judgment and I do
a termination on a pregnant teen, then to what
standards am I held, because this bill is quite
ambiguous on that. And it's important to understand
that if the standards are such that I wind up in
prison, that's going to have a pretty chilling effect
on whether or not we would of course consider doing a
pregnancy termination on a teen no matter how ...
[compelling] that teen's argument might be - it's
probably not going to happen.
So ... this is a less-than-a-perfect-situation. I
wish it was other, but the minority that this bill,
realistically, [is] ... going to affect are the ones
that are not going to be sort of affected by the study
that you just read. The majority of people who walk
in here will have a parent with them and, for them,
that study becomes meaningless, and for those that
don't have a good working relationship with their
parents, that study's still meaningless.
2:20:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he has been attempting to institute
a workable judicial bypass. He asked how often someone who's
been sexually abused or otherwise traumatized comes in seeking
an abortion, and what reporting mechanism do doctors have to
report instances of sexual abuse.
DR. WHITEFIELD said that the process he uses is the same that
any other mandatory reporter uses. If someone comes into his
office that appears to have been sexually abused, then that will
be reported. However, he pointed out, when he has done so in
the past, it has not proven to be a particularly transparent
process; he's had some problems identifying the appropriate
agency to call in order to get someone to respond - it is not
necessarily a straightforward process.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that that issue should be
addressed. He sought confirmation that when suspected sexual
abuse is reported, everything remains confidential.
DR. WHITEFIELD explained that things don't remain confidential
if suspected sexual abuse is reported, because then the
authorities have to contact the victim.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to Dr. Whitefield's concern
regarding AS 18.16.030(b)(4)(A) - which pertains to a minor
showing that she is sufficiently mature and well enough informed
to get an abortion without parental consent - noted that AS
18.16.030(e) reads:
(e) If the complainant makes only the allegation
set out in (b)(4)(A) of this section and if the court
finds by clear and convincing evidence that the
complainant is sufficiently mature and well enough
informed to decide intelligently whether to have an
abortion, the court shall issue an order authorizing
the complainant to consent to the performance or
inducement of an abortion without the consent of a
parent, guardian, or custodian. If the court does not
make the finding specified in this subsection, it
shall dismiss the complaint.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding, then, that
the determination regarding whether the minor is sufficiently
mature and well enough informed will be made by the court.
However, that determination must be made by clear and convincing
evidence - the highest standard possible in a civil case and the
same standard that's used to terminate parental rights
[altogether].
2:26:22 PM
DR. WHITEFIELD opined that that sets the standard exceedingly
high for the pregnant teenager and will more than likely
eliminate that provision as an option for her.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that that same standard is
used when a pregnant teenager seeks a judicial bypass on the
grounds that she is abused.
DR. WHITEFIELD opined that that is an exceedingly high standard
for a child who is in an abusive situation, particularly given
that she would have to have someone - a sibling over the age of
21, a law enforcement officer, an employee of the DHSS, a
grandparent, or a stepparent - substantiate that claim in a
notarized format. That standard essentially puts the parents in
a significantly superior position if the child cannot get
someone to step up for her, because the parents can simply
assert that they are not abusive. This will leave the minor
exposed to the parent who is doing the abusing. He
characterized that standard as a steep requirement to overcome.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said that having raised four children,
she suspects that probably each could have claimed abuse at some
point but that they now realize they weren't abused at all. She
said that although the type of abuse that's being discussed
actually does exist, she surmised that the judicial bypass
procedure provided for in HB 364 could be used by some teenagers
to blow things out of proportion. Furthermore, the
aforementioned study indicates that the decision-making
capability of teenagers is not as developed as originally
thought - teenagers may not be as mature as most people would
like to think. What this translates to, she remarked, is that
when people are young, they think they know everything and have
all the answers, yet they don't really realize all the potential
consequences of their behavior. This research helps in the
understanding that normal teenagers don't organize and
understand information in the same way adults do, and thus they
are not capable of making an appropriate decision. She
suggested that knowledge of this fact is why children are not
allowed to get a driver's license until they are 16, or join the
military until they are 18.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she believes that HB 364 contains an
extremely onerous "abuse" standard, particularly given that
Alaska has such a high rate of child abuse.
2:32:03 PM
SHELLY BOYER-WOOD, after relaying that she is a mother, said she
is concerned that the aforementioned evidence standard is
tremendously high. Furthermore, since even most adults feel
intimidated by the court system, she said she can't imagine what
it must feel like for a child who doesn't have the benefit of
"an adult working brain" to have to go before the courts and
explain why she feels she needs an abortion. She went on to
say:
[House Bill 364] is a misguided piece of legislation
that would allow the further alienation and trauma a
young woman would experience as the result of a bad
choice, rape, or even incest. The so-called parental
rights of those that want to control the lives of
their daughters do not trump the rights of traumatized
young women across Alaska. Once a young woman has
made the tormenting decision to terminate a pregnancy,
with or without discussing the situation with her
parents, she should have the safest, cleanest, and
most supportive environment within which to carry out
her decision. I as a parent gladly waive any claim to
parental rights when it comes to the life and safety
of my child.
When a young woman has decided, for whatever reason,
to terminate a pregnancy, she will stop at nothing to
do so. I would like to direct the committee's
attention to the era of the 1950s, wherein it is
documented that many mothers, grandmothers, nieces,
sisters, and daughters were left with no alternative
but to seek the services of back alley butchers when
they sought to terminate a pregnancy. Many of these
women, young and middle-aged alike, were left sterile,
and many endured horrendous infections due to
unsanitary conditions. One such account details the
death of a young mother left for dead, hemorrhaging in
a hotel room after the so-called doctor, who demanded
payment up front, performed his deed and then promptly
left the dying woman without any afterthought.
Additionally, has the thought that a young woman might
commit suicide as an option to end or terminate her
pregnancy crossed the minds of anyone there? Do not
think for one second that the option does not cross
the mind of a young woman in trouble. If you take the
legal means away from them, you will see a spike in
teen suicide for not only young women but also ... the
young men that love them. I, for one, am not willing
to sacrifice those young people for those that argue
in favor of parental rights.
MS. BOYER-WOOD concluded:
Also, please consider the likelihood that this
legislation would cause young women to seek abortions
in Mexico, where health standards are much lower and
safety of the patient is not of concern. The real
concern in Mexico is money and how much money a doctor
with a "no questions" attitude can make for performing
abortions on the young woman coming across the border
to get, what they consider at the time, help. I will
tenaciously attack this or any other legislation that
attempts to put Alaska's young women in jeopardy.
2:36:14 PM
CHRISTOPHER REYNOLDS, Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC),
relayed that he is a clinical therapist in private practice, is
the past president of the American Counseling Association (ACA),
and is the current representative of the American Association of
Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT), and
that he would be speaking in opposition to HB 364. Noting that
he has 14 years' of experience working with youth and families
in a clinical setting, he said he would be speaking to two
points, one of them being about the bill's judicial bypass
provision. He elaborated:
It's [my] clinical opinion that the hoops that a youth
would have to go through to access this judicial
bypass really seem developmentally inappropriate ...,
and ... looking back on the youth that I've served
that have been in these situations, I can't imagine
them negotiating the Alaska Superior Court in an
effort to access that judicial bypass. The second
point that I wanted to make is specifically with
[regard] to the [issue] ... of lying to
provide/prevent parental consent. And I want to
recognize that at the point at which a teen has an
unwanted pregnancy, there really are no good options,
and it seems to me that ... the task that the
committee has is trying to figure out what are the
better of a few bad options.
And I want to recognize that having a teenager make
the decision about whether to terminate their
pregnancy or to carry it full term is not a good
option, but I also would like for you to consider that
forcing that same teen to carry out an unwanted
pregnancy, go through the birth process, and then
either put the child up for adoption or have an
unwanted child also has very substantial risks. And
if you would ask me which of those two options has a
higher risk for promoting damage and trauma to the
child, without hesitation I would say, the second of
those two options.
2:39:11 PM
MR. REYNOLDS, in response to questions, explained that although
he has counseled pregnant teenagers, he has not referred them to
abortion services, but would connect them with community
resources if they did end up seeking abortion services. As a
therapist, he pointed out, it's his job to help the child and
the family come to their own conclusions about the direction
they wish to pursue.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that Mr. Reynolds is in a position
to help a teenager make a decision that would trump her parents'
decision without their knowledge.
MR. REYNOLDS responded, "I would say that it wouldn't trump the
parents' decision; I would say that it would be supporting where
the teen would be going."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that abrogation of parental rights is
a very serous issue. He asked Mr. Reynolds what he would
suggest to make the judicial bypass procedure as easy as
possible.
MR. REYNOLDS said that in thinking about the teenagers that
could find themselves in this situation, he can't imagine a
solution that would include them having to go to the court house
- that is an unrealistic solution; rather, it would be better if
they could be met in a place where they feel comfortable. He
added, "To ask them to have the self esteem and the coping
skills to be able to negotiate the judicial bypass process the
way that it's outlined in this bill, I think, is really
unrealistic."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised, "I suppose you think the courts
should come to the young mother rather than the young mother to
the court."
MR. REYNOLDS responded, "I don't think that's realistic either,
and I think that's a good reason why this bill shouldn't be
passed, because that's simply an unrealistic expectation."
2:42:26 PM
AMY DEVEREUX relayed that she is the mother of a 10-year-old
boy, and that she opposes HB 364. She said that for most of her
son's life, she has been a single parent. She elaborated:
As a teenager, I was faced with the dilemma of an
unplanned pregnancy, so I understand this issue from a
teenager's perspective and I know the desperation and
fear that a young couple can face in this situation.
Young people that are not given options when facing
such a difficult decision are more likely to make
choices that end in drastic or unsafe measures. Right
now, my son is only 10 years old, and we have a very
close relationship - he tells me everything - but I am
not so naive as to think this will continue into his
teenage years. I would like to think that we will
still have this relationship when he is older, but the
reality is that he may not see me as a person he can
confide in and look to for help in a desperate
situation.
My main concern for him is that he gets the care and
the assistance that he needs regardless of my
involvement in the situation. And, yes, as a parent,
it would break my heart to know that he could not talk
to me about an unplanned pregnancy or any number of
other things that may arise in his teen years, but his
access to accurate information and safety is more
important to me than my consent or notification. I
believe that House Bill 364 will restrict a young
person's access to counseling and safe medical care,
and, as an Alaskan parent, that's why I oppose House
Bill 364.
2:44:20 PM
NANCY SCHEETZ-FREYMILLER relayed that she is the parent of a 22-
year-old young woman, and that although she respects the concept
of parental rights, she doesn't think that government
interference will improve her communication as a parent or take
away her rights as a parent. Regardless that some committee
members are concerned about the issue of parental rights, she
said she doesn't see this proposed government solution as
helping at all. In conclusion, she said she is speaking against
HB 364, and urged the committee to understand that it won't
improve parental communication with teenagers.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Ms. Scheetz-Freymiller whether she
considers the Alaska Supreme Court's decision in State v.
Planned Parenthood of Alaska to be a governmental intrusion on
parental rights.
MS. SCHEETZ-FREYMILLER characterized her rights as a parent as
something - though nebulous - that she will always have with her
child. Regardless that everyone is trying to be a good parent,
there are exceptions to "the good family," and this bill will
have a tremendous impact [on those who don't have good parents].
She said she doesn't think that the effort to legislate
understanding between parents and their children is proper, nor
will that effort have the anticipated impact. Communication
between parent and child will either happen or it won't, and the
consequences of HB 364 are too drastic and too harmful to result
in the desired outcome, she added.
2:48:45 PM
ROBERTA N. HUNTER relayed she is the mother of ten children, one
of whom is a teenage girl, and that she has been actively
involved with abortion issues for over six years. She said she
is in support of HB 364, and offered her belief that abortion
leads to drug and alcohol use, depression, and suicide, and
sends many women into a downward spiral - emotionally, mentally,
and spiritually. She went on to say:
The younger a woman is, the more deeply these things
seem to happen. To have teens go through such things,
and for their parents to have no idea why, is a
surefire recipe for destruction among an Alaskan
family. This sort of pain, to be a parent who has no
idea what has happened to or is happening to their
child and therefore not know how to help, is tragic.
To be a teen and to hide, first of all a pregnancy,
then an abortion, then the aftereffects of these
things from your parents, is almost unfathomable as
far as imagining the guilt, suffering, and pain the
child must feel she has to endure. This is a good
bill for Alaska families ...; there are enough
provisions in this bill to protect minors that are
actually abused. If a teen wants an abortion without
her parents' consent, there are plenty of provisions,
for her to attempt this, in this bill.
MS. HUNTER opined that contrary to what some have said, HB 364
will help parents talk to their teenagers because the majority
of teenagers will have to obtain their parents' permission in
order to get an abortion. Regardless of the impact such a
conversation will have on the parents, the teenagers will feel
relief, and the parents will be able to employ adult coping
mechanisms. Open communication between parents and children is
always good. She added:
In the state of Alaska, the rights and
responsibilities of parents includes that of providing
... medical care for our children. On one hand we
have the government telling us that to be a
responsible parent, we are to protect and nurture our
children and provide them with responsible medical
care. On the other hand, [the] Alaska Supreme Court
has told us that our children, in cases of sexual
medical issues, don't need our permission or
participation in their medical care, and that we, the
parents, don't even need to know about our children's
sexual activities. This is foolery. Sexual activity
often leads to the need for medical care, and, as
parents, it's our right and responsibility to seek
appropriate medical care for our children. We have a
right and responsibility to know and respond
appropriately to our children's medical needs, and
this bill, HB 364, legally grants us this.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 364.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:54 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.
3:15:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in addition to outlining the existing
provisions of AS 18.16.010(a), indicated that Section 1 of HB
364 adds a stipulation that an abortion may not be performed on
an unemancipated woman under 17 years of age unless notice as
required under AS 18.16.020 has been given. Section 2 adds
language regarding the physician or surgeon's clinical judgment
to AS 18.16.010(g), which provides a defense from prosecution.
Section 3 [repeals and reenacts] AS 18.16.020, which outlines
the notice and consent requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL then indicated that in Section 3, under
subsection (a) of proposed AS 18.16.020, before an abortion on
an unemancipated minor under 17 years of age can be performed,
one of the following must apply: (1) the minor's parents, legal
guardian, or custodian shall have been given notice not less
than 48 hours before the abortion is performed and in turn shall
have given written consent; (2) a court issues an order under AS
18.16.030 authorizing the minor herself to consent; (3) the
court, by it's inaction under AS 18.16.030, [constructively
authorizes the minor herself to consent]; or (4) the minor is
the victim of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or a pattern of
emotional abuse by one or both parents, legal guardian, or
custodian, and the abuse is documented by a declaration of the
abuse in a signed and notarized statement by the minor and
another person - a sibling who is at least 21, a law enforcement
officer, [a representative of the DHSS who has investigated the
abuse,] a grandparent, or a stepparent - who has personal
knowledge of the abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that a minor needs
help when making a decision [about whether to have an abortion];
that this was "agreed to" in the court's ruling in Planned
Parenthood of Alaska; that "these give ample reason for a State
compelling interest to give them that line"; and that
[subsection (a)(4) of Section 3] addresses some of the court's
concerns in the aforementioned case.
3:21:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that Section 3 also adds
several provisions regarding notification. The new provisions
in proposed subsection (b)(1)-(2) and (c) outline what the
physician must document, how the physician is to go about the
notification process, how the physician is to verify the
identify the person who's being given notice - whether by
telephone or in person - and what the physician should do when
he/she is unsuccessful in giving "actual notice". Proposed
subsection (d) outlines that instances of suspected or
documented abuse shall be reported, and proposed subsection (e)
requires the physician to retain and preserve, for law
enforcement officials, the products of conception resulting from
criminal sexual assault of a minor.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that Sections 4 and 5 [make
conforming changes - regarding the new notice requirement - to
AS 18.16.030(a) and AS 18.16.030(b) respectively,] and that AS
18.16.030 pertains to the judicial bypass procedure, including
what statements are required by the court, and what allegations
by the minor the court must consider - either that the minor is
sufficiently mature and well enough informed to get an abortion
without parental consent, and/or that the minor is the victim of
physical abuse, sexual abuse, or a pattern of emotional abuse by
one or both parents, legal guardian, or custodian [or that
obtaining consent would not be in the minor's best interest].
3:25:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that Section 6 alters AS
18.16.030(c) by changing, from five business days to three
business days, the timeframe in which the Alaska Superior Court
must fix a time for a hearing pertaining to a judicial bypass
request; that Section 7 alters AS 18.16.030(j) by changing, from
four days to three days, the timeframes pertaining to an appeal
by the minor of the Alaska Superior Court's decision, [and
making conforming changes with regard to the new notice
requirement]; and that Section 8 alters AS 18.16.030(n) -
pertaining to the forms and information the court must provide -
to include a stipulation that the court must also provide
information that the minor can request the court to issue her an
excuse from school to attend the judicial bypass hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that those in urban areas won't
have a problem making use of the judicial bypass provisions, but
acknowledged that those in rural areas may have issues to
overcome. He characterized proposed 18.16.030(n)(5) as
important with regard to maintaining confidentiality, and
indicated that although keeping things confidential in a small
town could be problematic, the goal is to provide the minor with
as much privacy as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that Section 9 [which adds two
new sections to AS 18.16] precludes a parent, legal guardian, or
custodian from coercing a pregnant minor into having an
abortion; stipulates that withholding financial support in order
to coerce the minor into having an abortion shall be sufficient
evidence of emancipation status; defines "coercion" [for
purposes of AS 18.16.035]; and establishes a requirement that
the physician provide the DHSS with a monthly report that
includes information about each minor he/she performs an
abortion on, and outlines what that information shall consist
of. Sections 10-16 provide for conforming court rule changes
[to the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Alaska Probate
Rules, and the Alaska Rules of Civil procedure]. Section 18
proposes to add to the uncodified laws a right of intervention
provision; this, he remarked, will give the legislature the
right to defend this legislation should it be challenged.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said:
There's no doubt in my mind ... that this particular
issue is a societal question that will be worked back
and forth through the legislature, in the courts, and
in society generally for several reasons. What we
have here ... is a balance of ... the right of privacy
for an individual, and the right of parents to be
involved in [the] ... decision making of the young
child - the minor. And I fall in the place where
wherever it is humanly practical, and the parents are
good actors, that the right of a parent is equal to
the right of the child in that regard, and they must
[not be] severed by law. And that's what we've
actually done with the [Alaska] Supreme Court case,
and they said that there was not a compelling State
interest to keep those together under their standards.
And I disagreed with their standards, obviously.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that although the courts have
said that constitutional rights don't start when one reaches a
particular age, Alaska law views parents as the primary
protectors and guardians of minors, "and so I think we can show
a compelling State interest." He opined that HB 364 is meant to
address some of the court's concerns by providing for a judicial
bypass procedure that gives the minor the ability to demonstrate
before the court that she is responsible enough to make a
decision [about abortion]. He opined that that is something
that needs to be demonstrated, for the welfare of both the minor
and her family, and said that although some people think that
the right of the pregnant girl trumps everyone else's rights, he
disagrees. When a minor is in trouble, someone needs to be
there to help her, and that's one of the roles of court system,
regardless that it might be intimidating.
3:33:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES remarked:
This is an emotional issue, ... and I personally would
love to live in a world were this wasn't an issue; I'd
love to live in a world where we didn't have
unplanned, unwanted pregnancies, where we didn't have
teenagers facing these decisions. That would be my
ideal world, [and] I'd like to say it would be the
ideal world for ... most of us in this room. So we're
starting from an uncomfortable place, where we're not
living in anybody's ideal world, and we're talking
about what happens when everything goes wrong and you
do have a teenager who is pregnant - probably not
intentionally, maybe intentionally - and in my view
we're dealing, in this bill, particularly with those
who are not in the most ideal [world], who are not
living in Leave It To Beaver families. I had a pretty
Leave It To Beaver family myself, ... but
unfortunately the statistics tell us that's not the
case in a large number of Alaskan families.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, referring to Section 2, noted that
proposed AS 18.16.010(g) adds ", in the clinical judgment of the
physician or surgeon" and then goes on to define "clinical
judgment" as "a physician's or surgeon's subjective professional
medical judgment exercised in good faith". She characterized
that as a somewhat circular definition, and said she is not
entirely sure what that means. Furthermore, proposed
18.16.010(g)(3)(B) requires a physician, in instances of a
medical emergency, to prove that a delay in providing an
abortion will create a serious risk of medical instability
caused by a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major
bodily function of the pregnant minor. Referring to a
memorandum dated 2/27/08 written by the drafter, she noted that
[with regard to the aforementioned requirement] it says in part,
"I am not aware of any other state in which such a restrictive
definition of medical emergency exists and may not survive
constitutional scrutiny under our express constitutional
protections." As that requirement is currently written, it is
not sufficient that [there is a risk that an impairment of a
major bodily function] be substantial and irreversible, it must
also create a medical instability. She is not entirely sure
what that is, she remarked, nor why it is necessary to include
in the bill. In response to a question, she indicated that she
would be proposing an amendment to "strike that new language."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, referring to Section 3, noted that
proposed AS 18.16.020(a) says in part, "A person may not
knowingly perform or induce an abortion". She said she is
wondering whether that would include what is sometimes referred
to as the [morning] after pill, particularly given that Alaska's
statutory definition of "abortion" is extremely broad. She
indicated that her concern is that the proposed provisions meant
to apply to abortion will also be applied to what is basically a
dose of birth control taken the day after [a woman has
unprotected sex].
3:40:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her understanding that proposed AS
18.16.020(a)(1) requires a 48-hour waiting period after parental
consent has been obtained. She also offered her understanding
that "consent waiting periods" are only upheld for shorter
periods of time and only when there's an actual reason for the
waiting period, but there doesn't seem to be any such reason in
this instance. This seems to impose quite a burden, both on the
parents and on the minor, particularly if they are coming in
from rural Alaska, since they would then have to pay for food
and lodging for those additional days, and when burdens are more
onerous on rural Alaskans than on urban Alaskans, that is often
grounds for equal protection concerns. There just doesn't seem
to be any purpose behind waiting that additional 48-hour period,
she remarked, and it seems to undermine the parents' authority
even though they will have just been given the authority to
consent.
3:41:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES characterized proposed AS 18.16.020(a)(4)
as being a very narrow exception, because not only does the
minor have to document that she is abused but there also has to
be someone - from a very limited list of who that person could
be - with personal knowledge of the abuse. She said she doesn't
know what "personal knowledge of the abuse" means, or how the
minor will be able to meet the burden of getting someone to
corroborate the abuse. Referring to the list of acceptable
corroborators outlined in proposed AS 18.16.020(a)(4)(B)(i)-(v),
she noted that it doesn't include a sibling younger than the age
of 21, or an aunt, uncle, or cousin, or a stepsibling. She said
she finds paragraph (4) to be a fairly restrictive provision,
particularly given that the minor must document the abuse via a
notarized statement, and given that AS 44.50.062(5) requires
somebody who's getting something notarized to either be
personally known to the notary public or to produce government-
issued picture identification (ID) or government-issued ID with
a signature along with another valid ID with both a photo and
signature - a lot of minors simply won't have this level of
documentation, and this puts another burden on the minor who is
trying to prove abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that proposed AS 18.16.020(b)
requires the physician himself/herself to notify the parents,
but physicians are very busy people and so most other states
allow the physician to designate someone in his/her office to
notify the parents. In response to a question, she said she
disagrees with the notice requirement in general. Proposed AS
18.16.020(b)(1) - which pertains to providing notice in person -
requires the person receiving the notice to present what she
characterized as a fairly onerous level of documentation proving
that the person is the child's parent, legal guardian, or
custodian; the person must not only show his/her government-
issued ID, but also documentation of his/her relationship with
the minor, such as the minor's birth certificate, or a court
order of adoption, guardianship, or custodianship. It can be
difficult to put one's hands on such documents even when not
working under the sort of time constraints and stress that
accompany an unwanted pregnancy; this requirement is an
additional burden and could cause an additional delay.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that proposed AS 18.16.020(b)(2) -
which pertains to providing notice over the phone - requires the
physician to review published telephone directories in order to
verify that they are dialing the correct number, but the bill
doesn't clarify how many telephone directories must be reviewed.
Furthermore, the physician himself/herself must continue to
initiate the call in not less than two-hour increments for not
less than five attempts in a 24-hour period. The physician will
have to interrupt what he/she is doing, and it is unclear what
happens if he/she gets caught up in a task and it ends up being
more than two hours between calls. That seems a little strict,
she remarked.
3:48:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that proposed AS 18.16.020(c) says
that if providing "actual notice" is unsuccessful, the physician
may provide "constructive notice" - which means mailing written
notice after taking steps to verify the correct address. This
will add a lot of delay because the physician must first attempt
to provide actual notice. Furthermore, notice, via one of the
methods outlined in the bill, must be provided to the minor's
parent, legal guardian, or custodian at least 48 hours prior to
the abortion. She offered her belief that the bill isn't clear
with regard to whether simply providing constructive notice
after all other attempts to provide notice have failed meets the
bill's consent requirement. Referring to proposed AS
18.16.020(e) - which requires the physician to preserve the
products of conception if the pregnancy resulted from criminal
sexual assault - she opined that as written, this provision is
too broad and too vague with regard to what would be considered
the products of conception, and doesn't address what the chain
of custody will be for such evidence. She indicated that there
will be an amendment forthcoming to clarify what is meant by
"products of conception".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to Section 8 - which adds a new
paragraph (5) to AS 18.16.030(n) and pertains to the court
notifying minors seeking a judicial bypass that they can request
the court to provide them with an excuse from school and direct
the school to not notify their parents - and said she doesn't
believe this provision adequately addresses the issue of
confidentiality because it almost appears to require the court
to tell the school why the minor is being excused, and given
that there are often students working in school offices, this
could lead to breaches in confidentiality. Referring, then, to
Section 13, she said she is not sure what documentation would be
required of a minor who is filing a petition seeking
authorization to consent to an abortion, because the petition
must be under oath.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she has a concern about all of the
proposed court rule amendments. Because only a simple majority
of each body is needed to pass the bill, but two-thirds of each
body is needed to adopt the court rule amendments, several
portions of the bill could end up being deleted if the bill
should pass but not the court rule amendments. This could
result in a bill that provides a judicial bypass procedure with
regard to consent but not with regard to notice, and there could
be some situations in which it will be very important that the
parent not be notified that the minor is seeking an abortion.
3:55:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, referring to Sections 16, said she is not
sure what an "indirect court rule" is. Referring to Section 17
- the severability clause - she said she is not sure what the
court will actually do, particularly given that HB 364 is
remarkably similar to the law that the court just struck down;
the court might not be willing to sever just portions of the
bill. Referring to Section 18 - the right of intervention
clause - she said she's not ever seen such a provision and it
seems a little strange to allow members of the legislature to
intervene, as a party, in a court case. Normally that is the
DOL's role. This provision also says that bill sponsors could
be appointed to intervene, but it isn't clear with regard to
whether bill sponsors who are no longer members of the
legislature could be appointed to represent the legislative
branch.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, referring to Section 9 - which precludes
a parent, legal guardian, or custodian from coercing a pregnant
minor into having an abortion - surmised that it doesn't
preclude a parent, legal guardian, or custodian from coercing a
pregnant minor to give birth. In response to a comment, she
opined that parents shouldn't be allowed to coerce a pregnant
minor in either case. Referring to the bill in general,
Representative Holmes again noted that it is similar to the law
that the Alaska Supreme Court just overturned. Furthermore,
there is a legal opinion from the drafter in which the drafter
stated that she has substantial reason to believe that a state
court in Alaska would invalidate at least the consent
requirements under HB 364 both on res judicata grounds and on
constitutional grounds.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she has every reason to believe that
HB 364 is unconstitutional and that the legislature is just
basically picking a fight with the court, and said she believes
that doing so is inappropriate.
CHAIR RAMRAS disagreed.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her belief that HB 364 is the only
bill that requires both notification and consent; "that's a
little bit odd, since consent obviously implies notification."
She offered her understanding that the legal opinion, in
addition, characterizes HB 364 as one of the most harsh and
demanding notification/consent bills [in the country], and
opined that it is much harsher than the law that has already
been found to be unconstitutional. The bill's medical
exceptions, she also opined, are overly restrictive, and she is
concerned about some of the delays, and about the equal-
protection issues arising from the burdens being placed on rural
residents in particular. In response to a question, she
acknowledged that she doesn't like the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, in conclusion, said she has concerns
about the bill because it requires those minors who are seeking
judicial bypass to "go through a lot of very scary steps" but
doesn't stipulate who will help them do so.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that abortion is terminal for the
fetus, and that he and other committee members believe that they
are simply protecting the sanctity of life. He opined that
minors don't have the mental capacity to be making a decision of
"this magnitude."
[Following was a brief discussion regarding who was available
for questions and how the committee would be proceeding.]
4:12:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, Line 6 Insert a period "." after "consents"
and delete the remainder of line 6 and lines 7 though
11.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that the presumption that
Amendment 1 proposes to delete is not necessary because language
on page 5, line 12, requires, in the petition itself, that the
minor must affirmatively state under oath that she is
unemancipated. So there's no need for the presumption because
it's already, as a matter of law, part of the proof - it's sworn
to and it's in the petition; in the law, one doesn't need a
presumption unless there is an absence of proof.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that the language Amendment 1 is
proposing to delete is necessary because language in Section 3
requires either that there be notice or that a court has given
authorization to have an abortion without consent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that his point be researched
further as the bill moves through the process.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then withdrew Amendment 1.
4:16:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, Line 29 - Delete "medical instability caused
by a"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES explained that Amendment 2 addresses the
fact that under the bill as currently written, it is not
sufficient that in a medical emergency, a delay in performing an
abortion would create a serious risk of substantial and
irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the
pregnant minor, but the delay must also create a medical
instability. She said she doesn't know what that is, and that
it would seem to her that a substantial and irreversible
impairment of a major bodily function is enough without also
requiring a medical instability. Again, Representative Holmes
noted, the drafter, in her legal opinion, said, "I am not aware
of any other state in which such a restrictive definition of
medical emergency exists and may not survive constitutional
scrutiny under our express constitutional protections."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that the provision Amendment 2
is proposing to alter pertains to medical emergencies and the
goal of getting people stabilized. The standard is a good-faith
effort, he remarked, and he is looking at medical stability as a
part of that good-faith effort.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked what the penalty is for a violation
of this provision. She reiterated that she doesn't know what a
"medical instability" is.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that [under AS 18.16.010(c)], a
violation would subject the physician to a fine of not more than
$1,000, or a jail term of not more than five years, or both. He
added that under AS 18.16.010(e), if a physician violates AS
18.16.010(a)(3), he/she would be civilly liable for compensatory
and punitive damages.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said her point is that [this provision] is
adding another burden and making it very restrictive; when a
physician is dealing with a teenager's medical emergency, she
thinks they should want the doctor erring on the side of
protecting the teenager rather than worrying about spending time
in jail.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that at issue is the question
of whether there really is a medical emergency.
4:21:06 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Holmes and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives
Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-5.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 3 [a handwritten
amendment which he later noted was incomplete] and indicated
that the change it is proposing would be that on page 2, lines
27-30, all language after the words, "necessary to avert" would
be deleted and replaced with the words, "a serious risk to the
minor's health."; proposed AS 18.16.010(g)(3) would then no
longer need to be divided into subparagraphs (A) and (B), and
would then read:
"medical emergency" means a condition that, on the
basis of the physician's or surgeon's good faith
clinical judgment, so complicates the medical
condition of the pregnant minor that an immediate
abortion of the minor's pregnancy is necessary to
avert a serious risk to the minor's health.
4:22:45 PM
KEVIN G. CLARKSON, Esq., Attorney at Law, Brena, Bell &
Clarkson, PC, opined that the change proposed by Amendment 3
would result in language that is much vaguer than the [bill's]
current language. He went on to say:
The language with respect to "medical instability" and
"substantial and irreversible impairment of a major
bodily function", those are terms of medical art that
were testified to by emergency room physicians in the
parental consent case.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN and REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
MR. CLARKSON opined that the bill's current language is clearer
because it uses medical terms of art that doctors understand,
and the entire provision is premised upon the doctor's good-
faith, subjective clinical judgment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the handwritten version of
Amendment 3 is missing the language that is to be inserted, and
therefore needs to be altered to reflect his earlier description
of it. There being no objection, Amendment 3 was amended in
that fashion.
MR. CLARKSON, in response to a question, indicated that his
comments still apply because the medical terms of art would
still be deleted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG - referring to Amendment 3, as amended
- said:
Doctors, physicians, physician assistants, and the
medical community, every day, determine what
constitutes a serious risk to the minor's health, and
this is a medical decision, and it is something that
needs to be made on the spot. We are legislators, we
are not right there at the scene of the emergency, and
this gives the necessary discretion to the doctor to
assess whether there is a sufficiently serious risk to
the minor's health that they have to perform the
abortion right there and there's not time to do other
things. This is just common sense kind of medicine.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that the term "minor's health" is far
more subjective than the term "minor's death"; "health" can be
defined in a number of ways, and therefore he thinks "death" is
the better term.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and
Holmes voted in favor of Amendment 3, as amended.
Representatives Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3, as amended, failed by
a vote of 2-5.
4:26:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 4,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, Line 6 - After abortion delete "not less than
48 hours before the abortion is performed"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her belief that the 48-hour
provision undermines the parents' authority to make the
decision, because it's making them wait an additional 48 hours
even when they do consent. She also offered her belief that the
provision has implications for rural girls because it requires
them and their parents to stay in a city longer, at great
expense, without there being any real reason for them having to
wait those extra days. She asked the committee to pass
Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, pointing out that what is being
discussed is the termination of a pregnancy, opined that a 48-
hour waiting period is well within reason, given that there will
probably be some type of waiting period, since the goal is to
get people communicating [with each other].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she is a big supporter of parental
involvement in children and teenagers' decisions whenever it is
safe.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Holmes and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives
Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-5.
4:28:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 5,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, delete Lines 15-28. Insert "a minor who is a
victim of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or emotional
abuse is not required to give notice or obtain consent
when such abuse is documented in a writing signed by
the minor under penalty of perjury."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He indicated that it won't be
that hard for a minor to produce a notarized statement for the
court, and expressed favor with keeping the list outlined in
proposed AS 18.16.020(a)(4) as is.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, however, that AS 09.63.020
- which pertains to oaths, certifications, notarizations, and
verifications - allows a document to be signed "under penalty of
perjury", and it doesn't have to be done in front of a notary
public if the certification states the date and place of
execution, the fact that a notary public or other official
empowered to administer the oaths is unavailable, and the words,
"I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true."
He indicated that such a certification is to be used only when a
notary public is unavailable.
4:31:45 PM
PAMELA FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes, Legislative Legal and
Research Division, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), in response
to a question, after relaying that she would be speaking on
behalf of the drafter, Jean Mischel, explained that a minor can
certainly sign a notarized document; a minor can't do certain
things, such as create contracts, but a minor - if he/she is of
sufficient age, usually seven years old or so - can testify in a
hearing and thus is capable of taking an oath. She posited that
if a minor is capable of taking an oath, he/she ought to be able
to sign a notarized document.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that there was a supreme court
case wherein the witness to the murder of one parent by another
was a four-year-old, and [the witness's testimony] was allowed
because the witness could communicate adequately and understood
the duty to tell the truth.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether, if the minor signs a
document stating she is the victim of abuse, the court would
then be obligated to act to address the issue of the abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said yes, because it would be like
filing a complaint in court - the procedure outlined in the bill
is commenced by the filing of a sworn petition under oath.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised, then, that law enforcement
would then become involved.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that one can
get a statement notarized if one has sufficient ID, and opined
that it is important to have corroboration that physical or
sexual abuse of a minor is occurring. Referring to proposed AS
18.16.020(a)(4)(B), he characterized those listed therein as the
minor's asset base, and noted that in many other areas of the
law, it has already been decided that minors need help. If a
minor has made a statement that abuse is occurring and that
abuse is then corroborated, then a minor does not need parental
consent to obtain an abortion.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that if a minor is required to sign a
document "under penalty of perjury" but no abuse has actually
occurred, the minor will have then committed a criminal act;
therefore, he is inclined to vote against Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that the provision Amendment 5 is
proposing to alter is dealing with the most vulnerable of an
already vulnerable group - these girls have been abused and are
now pregnant, possibly as a result of that abuse. She added:
We all know that abuse in this state and other states
is underreported, largely because of fear. We're now
dealing with some of the situations that some of our
testifiers, I think, were describing earlier: you've
got, probably, a very scared teen who may be scared of
[her] ... family, and I'm thinking that knowing that
[she's] ... got to comply with this [paragraph] (4)
has got to scare the living daylights out of ...
[her]. And it's going to keep delaying decisions.
And I'm just afraid that the more burdens we put on
them in that situation, the more often times you end
up with the person throwing [herself] ... down the
stairs or tying to go through more drastic measures.
So I would support [the proposed change], because I
think the amendment is a little bit less burdensome
and a little bit less scary. ... This statement will
still go to the police, it will still go to the
courts, it will still be investigated, we will still
get help, but I think it's a little bit less scary and
you're more likely to have people reach out for that
help. So I support the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agrees that a vulnerable
youngster "is going to jump." However, he opined, Amendment 5
isn't providing any direction, whereas the current language
specifically requires the minor to also get someone else to
substantiate her claim. "To characterize the courts as a place
where you can't get help in our society, I think generally has
been true in some areas but is not true in this area, and the
culture change has to happen where people, when they need
intervention in their life, can find those places," he added.
He expressed a preference for the language currently in proposed
AS 18.16.020(a)(4).
4:38:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that Amendment 5
does three things. One, it eliminates the requirement that the
declaration of abuse be made in front of a notary public; two,
it eliminates the requirement that the declaration must also be
signed by another person with personal knowledge of the abuse -
often when there is abuse by a parent, no one else has personal
knowledge of it, so this requirement would be impossible to
comply with; and three, it specifically provides an exemption
from notifying the parent and obtaining consent. On the latter
point, proposed AS 18.16.020(a)(4) as currently written requires
the physician to notify the perpetrator that his/her victim is
seeking an abortion, and doesn't give the victim any protection.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL disagreed.
CHAIR RAMRAS acknowledged Representative Gruenberg's point, but
reiterated that Amendment 5 could subject the minor to the
charge of perjury. He suggested to the bill sponsor that at
some point he address [Representative Gruenberg's point].
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Holmes and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 5. Representatives
Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, Dahlstrom, and Ramras voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 2-5.
4:40:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 6,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, Line 29 - After "(a)" insert "(1)"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG - suggesting that Amendment 6 might
need to be amended - pointed out that paragraphs (2) and (3) of
AS 18.16.020(a) stipulate that the minor doesn't need parental
consent, and so under those paragraphs, the physician needn't
give notice as outlined in AS 18.16.020(b); offered his belief
that it is not the sponsor's intent to require the physician to
give notice when subsection (a)(4) applies; and opined that at
the very least, something should be done to ensure that notice
is not required when either paragraph (2) or (3) apply.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES concurred, and surmised that not
specifying that subsection (b) pertains only to paragraph (1) of
subsection (a) is merely a drafting error, since the whole point
of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) is to bypass the notice and
consent requirements of the bill. Amendment 6 will simply allow
subsection (b) to make sense, and is not a substantive change,
she opined.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested a conceptual amendment to
Amendment 6 such that language be added to paragraph (4) to
clarify, at least conceptually, that when it applies, notice and
consent is not required - language similar to what's included in
paragraphs (2) and (3) such that the minor can consent to her
own abortion "without notice and consent of a parent, guardian,
or custodian". Currently, paragraph (4) is not clear on that
point, and one wouldn't want to give notice to the perpetrator
of the abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated agreement with the intent of
adding such language to paragraph (4), and that he agrees with
Amendment 6 as currently written.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a comment, indicated
that he is amenable to addressing those two points separately.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Amendment 6.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 6 was adopted.
4:44:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt [Conceptual]
Amendment 7, to add to paragraph (4) - somewhere on lines 15-18
of page 3 - language along the lines of, "without notice and
consent of a parent, guardian, or custodian and the minor
consents to the abortion".
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected, and opined that because that
language is already contained in paragraph (3) and is followed
by "; or", the concept already applies to paragraph (4).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that that same language is
also included in paragraph 2, and said he is proposing that that
language be inserted into paragraph (4) as well. Representative
Gruenberg asked Representative Coghill whether he would prefer
to address this issue at another time.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he wants to ensure that
the language fits.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES surmised that paragraph (1) is the only
paragraph in AS 18.16.020(a) which requires the physician to
give notice, and that it would be consistent to clarify that
point by adding the aforementioned language to paragraph (4),
particularly given that it pertains to situations involving
abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged that [Conceptual]
Amendment 7 may be overbroad because it might not be the parent
who is the perpetrator of the abuse, and indicated that his
intent in offering [Conceptual] Amendment 7 is to ensure that
the perpetrator of the abuse not be notified that the minor is
seeking an abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then withdrew [Conceptual] Amendment 7.
4:47:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 8,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, Line 31 - After the first use of the term
"abortion" insert "or the physician's designee" and
after the second use of the term "abortion" insert "or
the physician's designee"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, remarking that physicians are busy
people, relayed that she has been told that in other
jurisdictions which require notice to be given to the parent, it
is customary to allow the physician to designate someone to give
the notice. She offered her hope that a physician in Alaska
would be allowed to designate such a task to an appropriate
person within his/her office, particularly given the onerous
requirement of having to initiate the call in not less than two-
hour increments for not less than five attempts in a 24-hour
period.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, by way of analogy, noted that when a
physician prescribes medication for a patient, the physician has
someone on his/her staff phone the prescription into the
pharmacy.
4:48:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he wants to ensure that the
physician is the one in charge of providing notice, and opined
that providing notice about an abortion is not the same as
prescribing medication. He expressed reluctance in allowing a
physician to designate the notification task to office staff;
instead, the physician must be the one to make contact with the
parent. He said he doesn't view the requirements stipulated in
subsection (b)(1)-(2) as onerous.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested as an alternative that the
designee be allowed to place the calls and then when the parent
actually answers, the doctor can then speak to parent. As
currently written, the doctor himself/herself must be the one to
place the calls, and that's really onerous, he opined.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL characterized that as a reasonable
alternative, but stressed that he doesn't want to simply excuse
the doctor from making contact with the parent.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES indicated that such an alternative is
acceptable to her.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 8.
4:51:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 9, to alter proposed AS 18.16.0202(b) as appropriate
such that the physician or his/her designee may initiate the
call but the physician himself/herself must be the one to speak
to the parent when the parent answers the phone. There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 9 was adopted.
4:52:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 10,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, Line 13 - Delete after "telephone" "but" and
insert after "physician" "shall make reasonable
efforts to comply with this subsection. A physician
that makes reasonable attempts to comply with this
subsection shall not be held liable for failure to
notify." Delete the rest of line 13-16.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that the need for Amendment
10 is partially alleviated by the adoption of Conceptual
Amendment 9.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to Amendment 10.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to the requirement that the
physician initiate the call in not less than two-hour increments
for not less than five attempts in a 24-hour period, pointed out
that mandating a specific number of calls will be burdensome for
small offices - particularly those with limited staff - and so
he is suggesting the alternative of simply requiring the
physician to make reasonable efforts to comply with the notice
provision.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed a preference for waiting until
Conceptual Amendment 9 is incorporated into the bill, and
posited that Conceptual Amendment 9 adequately addresses
concerns regarding the requirements outlined in proposed AS
18.16.020(b).
CHAIR RAMRAS agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 10.
4:54:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 11,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, Line 23 - After "mail" insert ", restricted to
addressee only"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that certified mail can go
to anybody at the address it's mailed to, including people that
shouldn't receive such a notice. Amendment 11 is a technical
amendment that would address this problem.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 11 was adopted.
4:55:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 12,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, Line 29 - Delete "products" and insert
"evidence"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that the correct
term of art to use is "evidence of conception" as opposed to
"products of conception"; this provision - proposed AS
18.16.0202(e) - is referencing material that would go to law
enforcement officials for use in a legal proceeding.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL argued that what is being aborted is a
product of conception, and only the court would view it as
evidence.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, however, that this
provision will be read primarily by those collecting material
for use in court.
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested as an alternative amending Amendment 12
such that the language on page 29 would be changed to read in
part, "products of conception as evidence".
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN suggested instead amending Amendment 12 such
that the words, "and evidence" would be added after the word
"products" on line 29; the language would then read in part,
"products of conception and evidence".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he would be amenable to
that wording as an amendment to Amendment 12.
CHAIR RAMRAS [although no formal motion was made] announced that
the amendment to Amendment 12 was adopted.
4:57:13 PM
CLOVER SIMON, MSW, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Planned
Parenthood of Alaska (PPA), asked Representative Coghill whether
it would be acceptable to him if only enough material is
retained to establish the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of the
fetus, as opposed to retaining all products of conception.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said no, but added that he would give the
matter further consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether law enforcement will have
procedures in place to deal with the aforementioned material,
and asked Representative Coghill what he would want the doctor
to do.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that the
capital budget includes funding to create more storage for
evidence, including evidence in sexual abuse of a minor cases.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked how the doctor would interact with
law enforcement, and what the chain of custody will be.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that procedures
are already in place, but acknowledged that "this" would be new
[to law enforcement]. He expressed a preference for keeping
Amendment 12, as amended, as is, and opined that storing more
evidence won't be problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed a preference for Ms. Simon's
suggestion - keeping only enough material to obtain a DNA sample
so as to prove the abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that keeping all products of
conception would ensure that enough evidence is retained.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, Holmes,
Gruenberg, Dahlstrom, Coghill, and Ramras voted in favor of
Amendment 12, as amended. Representative Samuels voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 12, as amended, was adopted by a vote
of 6-1.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he still has concerns regarding DNA
and chain of custody issues, since law enforcement won't be
present at the abortion; "you're going to end up with a problem
unless it gets addressed."
5:02:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 13,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 5, Lines 20-21 - Delete "a pattern of"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that it will be difficult to
determine whether there is, quote, "a pattern of emotional
abuse"; it will be simpler to just not include the words, "a
pattern of" and thus avoid arguments based on semantics.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that the term "emotional abuse" by
itself is too broad, and that establishing that there is a
pattern of emotional abuse can be done in a variety of ways.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested as an alternative amending
Amendment 13 such that the word, "serous" replace the words, "a
pattern of". There could be one instance of very serious
emotional battering, and he does not want to require the minor
to have to show several instances of emotional abuse, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that the current language of, "a
pattern of emotional abuse" is simply asking the minor to show
that there is a reason why parental consent shouldn't be
required.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Holmes and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 13. Representatives Lynn,
Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, and Ramras voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 13 failed by a vote of 2-5.
5:05:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 14,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 7, Line 14 - Delete comma after "court"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that including the comma on line
14 is a typographical error.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then made a motion to amend Amendment
14 such that the comma on page 7, line 15, after the word
"jurisdiction", also be deleted. There being no objection,
Amendment 14 was amended.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 14, as amended, was
adopted.
5:06:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 15,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 7, line 16 - After section insert "and to get an
abortion"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the current language of
proposed AS 18.16.030(n)(5) provides that the minor may request
the court to issue an order excusing her from school only for
the purpose of attending the judicial bypass proceedings, but
not also for the purpose of obtaining the abortion if the court
authorizes her to consent to an abortion. He characterized
Amendment 15 as a technical amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that AS 18.16.030(n) only
speaks to what forms and information the court must make
available to minors seeking judicial bypass.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he assumes it is Representative
Coghill's intent that if the court issues the order authorizing
the minor to get an abortion without parental consent, that the
court should also excuse the minor from school in order to
obtain the abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, in response to comments, surmised that
Amendment 15 is simply saying that once the court has authorized
the minor to obtain an abortion without parental consent, then
the court should - in addition to directing the school to excuse
the minor in order that she may attend the court proceedings -
direct the school to excuse the minor in order that she may
obtain the abortion. Without the adoption of Amendment 15, when
the minor misses school in order to get the abortion, the school
could notify the parents that their child has missed school.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to amend
Amendment 15.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked why an abused child would be
allowed to go back into the home where she is being abused.
5:10:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested amending Amendment 15 such
that the [words], "and [to get an abortion]" be replaced with
the words, "to get the court-ordered abortion".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES argued against such a change because the
court wouldn't be ordering an abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS suggested using the words, "court-
approved" instead.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed disfavor with Representative
Gruenberg's suggestion and with Amendment 15.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that if the court authorizes the
minor to get an abortion without parental consent, then proposed
AS 18.16.030(n) should also contain a clause that stipulates
that the court may order the school to also excuse the minor for
that abortion procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed understanding of that concept.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 15.
5:12:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 16 such that on page 7, line 16, language be added
stipulating that if the court allows the abortion, it can also
direct the school to allow the minor to be excused for the
abortion procedure. There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 16 was adopted.
5:12:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 17,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 7, Line 21 - Delete "parent, legal guardian, or
custodian of a minor" and insert "person"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG - noting that proposed AS 18.16.035(a)
prohibits a parent, legal guardian, or custodian from coercing a
minor into having an abortion - opined that no one should be
allowed to coerce a minor.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agrees with the concept that it
wouldn't be proper for anybody to coerce [a minor into having an
abortion].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it seems to him that no one should
be allowed to coerce someone to either have an abortion or to
have the child - there shouldn't be any coercion going on. He
indicated that he wishes to address three points: who should be
prohibited, what should be prohibited, and who should be
protected.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether Amendment 17 would protect the
unborn child.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL and CHAIR RAMRAS said it would.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would always agree that nobody
should ever coerce somebody, but is not sure what effect
adoption of Amendment 17 will have on other provisions of
statute or whether the new language would still fit within the
framework of the parental consent statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, in response to comments, said she doesn't
think anybody should be coercing [another].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed, and removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 17 was adopted.
5:17:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 18, to
delete the words "a minor" on page 7, line 21, and replace them
with the words, "another person". Given that Amendment 17 has
been adopted, the adoption of Amendment 18 would result in
proposed AS 18.16.035(a) reading: "A person may not coerce
another person who is pregnant to have an abortion."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that proposed AS 18.16.035 is
all about minors, and said that although he agrees with the
concept embodied in Amendment 18, he would be objecting to it in
order to keep the language focused on minors.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Gruenberg voted in
favor of Amendment 18. Representatives Holmes, Dahlstrom,
Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 18 failed by a vote of 1-6.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said that although she likes the idea of
broadening the restriction on coercion, this issue might be
better addressed at another time.
5:21:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 19,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 7, Line 22 - Before the period insert "or to bear
a child"
Page 7, Line 25 - After "abortion" insert "or to bear
a child"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't want any coercion
occurring "on either side."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agrees, but objects to
Amendment 19 because the issue pertains to judicial bypass for
an abortion.
5:22:15 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and
Holmes voted in favor of Amendment 19. Representatives
Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 19 failed by a vote of 2-5.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 20,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 10, Lines 26-31. Delete Sec. 18.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES - noting that Section 18 pertains to the
proposed right of intervention - said she has problems, both
philosophically and technically, with the concept that a sponsor
or cosponsor of this legislation could intervene in any
forthcoming court case that's based on a constitutional
challenge.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that even if Section 18 is
removed, the legislature wouldn't be relinquishing any of its
rights, and indicated agreement that the language regarding bill
sponsors/cosponsors could be problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he'd suggested the
language initially so that people would be reminded that the
legislature would be following what happens with [this
legislation].
5:25:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that under the Alaska Rules
of Civil Procedure, there is a rule pertaining to intervention
as a matter of right, and a rule pertaining to permissive
intervention. The legislature has the right to file, via
Legislative Counsel, a request to intervene, but would not have
any standing to intervene as a matter of right. As currently
drafted, [Section 18] would limit the right of intervention to
only the sponsors and cosponsors of the legislation. He
suggested that the legislature shouldn't [impose such a
limitation on itself].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected, and posited that a right of
intervention provision should be included in more bills, though
the right should pertain to the entire legislature rather than
just individual members. He then removed his objection, but
opined that the legislature should assert its rights against
both the executive branch and the judicial branch.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 20 was adopted.
5:26:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Conceptual Amendment 21,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 9, Line 26 - delete "clear and convincing" and
insert "a preponderance of the"
AS 18.16.030(e) is amended by deleting "clear and
convincing" and inserting "a preponderance of the"
AS 18.16.030(f) is amended by deleting "clear and
convincing' and inserting "preponderance of the"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Conceptual Amendment 21
changes the evidence standard used by the court to grant
judicial bypass from clear and convincing evidence to a
preponderance of the evidence, and it does so in subsections (e)
and (f) of AS 18.16.030 and conformingly in Rule 20(3) of the
Alaska Probate Rules.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 21.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, offered his
understanding that the evidence standard of clear and convincing
evidence means that one would be left with a firm conviction
that the party should prevail, and is the highest standard used
in civil litigation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL - noting that in emancipation
proceedings, the evidence standard of a preponderance of the
evidence is used - opined that the higher standard of clear and
convincing evidence should be used when what's at issue is
whether to terminate the life of the unborn.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG argued that if Conceptual Amendment 21
is not adopted, a lawyer could simply tell a minor client
seeking an abortion to just get emancipated first and then get
the abortion.
5:30:15 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether a minor would still have to satisfy
all the provisions of the [proposed] judicial bypass statute if
the evidence standard were to be changed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that she would, that
the court did address the issue of evidence standard, and that
the proposed notice and consent provision contains a standard of
clear and convincing evidence.
MR. CLARKSON, in response to a question, offered his
understanding that the standard of clear and convincing evidence
would apply in a judicial bypass proceeding, that such a
standard is used in nearly every other [similar] statute in the
country, and that such a proceeding is ex parte - with no
opposing side testifying. This type of proceeding terminates
parental rights with regard to abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again argued that if the evidence
standard of clear and convincing evidence is found to be too
onerous, then a lawyer will simply advise his/her minor client
who's seeking an abortion to just get emancipated first.
MR. CLARKSON noted that a parent gets notice of an emancipation
proceeding.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, however, that even though
the parent gets notice of the emancipation proceeding, if the
court finds the minor is mature enough to warrant being
emancipated, emancipation will be granted regardless.
MR. CLARKSON, in response to a question and comments, offered
his understanding that the evidence standard of clear and
convincing would not apply if the minor provides the doctor with
documentation, as outlined in AS 18.16.020(a)(4), that her
parents are abusing her, because then she need never go to
court.
5:34:47 PM
MS. FINLEY noted that AS 18.16.020(a)(4) doesn't pertain to the
judicial bypass procedure, though AS 18.16.020(a)(2) and (3) do.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG also pointed out that under AS
18.16.030(f), if a minor is seeking a judicial bypass under AS
18.16.030(b)(4)(B) - which pertains to abuse by the parents -
then an evidence standard of clear and convincing evidence will
be used by the court.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that that is as it should be.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Holmes and
Gruenberg voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 21.
Representatives Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 21 failed by
a vote of 2-5.
5:36:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 364, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected. She opined that there is still
more work to be done on the bill, and that the bill won't help
communication between parents and their children but instead
will place an onerous burden on those teenagers who are the most
vulnerable and will increase their health risks.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN relayed that just prior to this meeting,
he'd received call from a woman who supports HB 364 and who'd
had an abortion without telling her parents but then wished she
had. Acknowledging that he is prolife and that the bill
addresses the issue of abortion, he said that for him the bill
has more to do with limiting the court from legislating from the
bench, and with parental rights. He went on to say:
Without this bill, parents are irrelevant to the
child's decision, to a decision that cannot be
reversed. In my worldview, children are a gift from
god entrusted to the care of parents for a proper
upbringing. Children don't belong to Washington D.C.,
children don't belong to Juneau, [and] children
certainly don't belong to the Alaska Supreme court;
parents [and no one else] are responsible for caring
for and for educating their children and ... that
includes education on all aspects of abortion.
Sometimes the government gets things backwards [and]
believes the parents are somehow responsible to the
government for everything. In my way of thinking,
that's not so - the government is responsible to
parents. ... When parents need to resolve a situation
about their child, the court should not get in the way
except in some needed bypass situations, which we've
addressed very well in this bill today. And, yes, the
legislature is also a government, but the legislature
is a balancing force between the separation of powers
between the executive branch, the legislative branch,
and the judicial branch, which I think has overstepped
its bounds, and hope that in some way HB 364 will help
address that issue. ... And I strongly support the
bill, obviously.
5:41:12 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Samuels,
Lynn, Dahlstrom, and Ramras voted in favor of reporting HB 364,
as amended, out of committee. Representatives Holmes and
Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 364(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote
of 5-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:41 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|