03/11/2009 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB35 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 11, 2009
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Linda Menard
Senator Donald Olson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 35
"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 220, Alaska Rules
of Appellate Procedure, and Rule 20, Alaska Probate Rules,
relating to judicial bypass for an abortion; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 35
SHORT TITLE: NOTICE & CONSENT FOR MINOR'S ABORTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) JUD, FIN
03/09/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/09/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/09 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/11/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
BRITTENY A. CIONI
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
JEFFREY A. MITTMAN, Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU of Alaska)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
CAYLEIGH ALLEN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
ALICE SMOKER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
LISA EAGAN-LAGERQUIST
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
SUZANNE FORSLING
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
AARON K. "KIT" DAHLSTROM
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 35.
SIDNEY HEIDERSDORF, President
Alaskans For Life, Inc.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
ELIZABETH ROLL, M.D.
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
TAMMIE WILSON
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of HB 35.
KASSI GRUNDER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
GAIL McCANN
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
JEANETTE LACEY DUNN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
PATRICIA FINK
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
MARIA RENSEL
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
MIKE PRAX
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 35, indicated
support for it.
KAREN LEWIS, Executive Director
Alaska Right to Life
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
KEN ERBEY
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
DOUG McKINNIS
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 35, provided
comments and asked the committee to vote "Yes" on the bill.
SHANA CARDOZA
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked the committee to vote "Yes" on HB 35.
CHARLES ROHRBACHER, Deacon
Roman Catholic Diocese of Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35, and
responded to questions.
ANNIE MEURLOTT
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 35, read a letter
signed by herself and some of her neighbors.
AMY BOLLENBACK
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
CHRIS FONTAINE
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
HANNAH FOREMAN
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 35, asked the
committee to support the bill.
JESSICA WELLER, Victim Advocate
Standing Together Against Rape (STAR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
MEGH BARNETT
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
NANCY BISHOP
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
JACKIE CASON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
AMY LEE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
KRYSTAL MEULENERS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
DIANNE HOLMES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
BRITTANY GOODNIGHT, Public Affairs Manager
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest (PPGNW)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
GERAN TARR, Director
Alliance for Reproductive Justice (ARJ)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
STEPHANIE TAYLOR
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
SARAH CASE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
JESSICA LARSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
ANN GRAY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
MARGARET BROWN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
STEPHANIE SCHURTER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
ROBERTA N. HUNTER
Salcha, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
CARISSA PHILLIPS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 35, urged passage
of the bill.
PAULINE LAFOREST
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
DEBBIE JOSLIN, President
Eagle Forum Alaska
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
DAVID BRONSON
Alaska Family Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
CATHY COTTON
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
PAMELA SAMASH
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
MICHAEL REMILLARD
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
RICK SIKMA
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 35.
KAT DAVIS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 35, indicated a
preference for passage of the bill.
LEE CAGE
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
D. A. McGILVARY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35, and asked that it be passed.
SETH CHURCH
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
KIM BODIKER
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35 and asked that members vote "Yes" on it.
CAROL SZOPA
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 35, said she was
for passage of the bill.
JANET CREPPS, Deputy Director
U.S. Legal Program
Center for Reproductive Rights
New York, New York
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
HEATHER CHURCH
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
HEIDI DOUDNA
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
ANNIE DOUGHERTY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
GERR C. KEFFER
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
DICK STOFFEL
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 35.
TIFFANY ROGERS-BORGES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 35.
MARLENE MEYER
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 35.
JACKIE GENGLER
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged support of HB 35.
DEVON SCHRODER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
SUSAN REEVES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
BELISHA JEFFRIES
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
ORVILLE SMITH
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
STEVE BRADLEY
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
KAREN MARTIN
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
ROBIN SMITH
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
KATIE HULL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 35.
CASSONDRA ODDEN
Talkeetna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 35.
SCOTT PUSTAY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 35.
TABITHA CHRISMAN
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Indicated support for HB 35.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:31 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Coghill,
Gatto, and Dahlstrom were present at the call to order.
Representatives Lynn, Gruenberg, and Holmes arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Senators Menard and Olson were also in
attendance.
HB 35 - NOTICE & CONSENT FOR MINOR'S ABORTION
1:07:39 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS [announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 35, "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 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."].
1:07:53 PM
BRITTENY A. CIONI indicated that she would be testifying in
opposition to HB 35. After noting that she is an economist, she
pointed out that the economic effects of childbirth can be
particularly severe on a teenager who drops out of high school
and attempts to support herself and a child; in addition to
current high unemployment rates, employment opportunities for
teenagers and young adults are very limited and typically
consist of low-wage jobs that most often do not include benefits
such as healthcare. To have to care for a baby at a young age
saddles a teenager with responsibilities that limit her
opportunities for education and therefore also limit her
contribution to society. In addition to the economic
consequences, the health consequences for minors giving birth
can also be rather harsh: maternal mortality, non-fatal
complications from premature birth, and underweight babies are
higher among women who are under the age of 20. Access to
reproductive healthcare, including abortion, is vital for
pregnant minors, and being free from parental interference is
just as vital.
MS. CIONI offered her belief that passage of parental
notification legislation may make girls vulnerable to physical
and emotional violence. Often, these types of laws will
frighten teenagers away from medical care, delaying counseling
and abortion until later on in the pregnancy, thus increasing
the number of second- and third-term abortions that are
performed on teenagers. First-term abortions, in contrast, are
the safest. Such legislation will also increase the likelihood
that teenagers will seek illegal abortions outside of the
healthcare system. Most professional medical societies,
including the American Medical Association (AMA), oppose
parental notification laws; such laws have resulted in an
increase in self-induced or illegal abortions, and in more
minors bearing unwanted babies - the latter having all sorts of
societal consequences.
MS. CIONI pointed out that not all teenagers are fortunate
enough to have supportive parents. A paper produced by the
American Psychological Association (APA) titled "Parental
Consent and Adolescent Reproductive Health Care - What does the
Psychological Research Say?" in part reads:
A disproportionate number of young adolescents who
become pregnant live in severely unstable families
(Ambuel, 1995). Thus, adolescents most at risk for
pregnancy are also those most likely to come from
violent and/or chaotic homes where they may not be
able to seek guidance from their parents.
MS. CIONI, in conclusion, opined that HB 35 would impact [some
of] society's most vulnerable members - at risk teenagers - and
that it's the job of political leaders and citizens to protect
those teenagers rather than harm them.
1:13:18 PM
JEFFREY A. MITTMAN, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties
Union of Alaska (ACLU of Alaska), said that the ACLU of Alaska
strongly opposes HB 35; as a nonpartisan organization, the ACLU
of Alaska seeks to protect the rights - guaranteed under the
U.S. Constitution and the Alaska State Constitution - of all
Alaskans, and to preserve and expand civil liberties. Requiring
parental consent for a minor's abortion violates the Alaska
State Constitution according to the Alaska Supreme Court in
State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska. Furthermore, regardless
of how one views the bill's constitutional infirmities, HB 35
will put Alaska's teenagers at risk. Parents, rightfully, want
to be involved in their teenagers' lives, but no law can mandate
family communication, and HB 35, if passed, would have terrible
consequences in the real world because desperate teenagers will
do desperate things. Recognizing this, leading medical
organizations, whose members provide care for the vast majority
of adolescents, have policies explicitly opposing mandatory
parental notification.
MR. MITTMAN offered that one of the American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Adolescence policy statements [in
part] reads:
Genuine concern for the best interests of minors
argues strongly against mandatory parental consent and
notification laws. Although the stated intent of
mandatory ... laws is to enhance family communication
and parental responsibility, there is no supporting
evidence that the laws have these effects. ... There
is evidence that such legislation ... increases the
risk of medical and psychological harm to the
adolescent. Judicial bypass provisions do not
ameliorate the risk. ... The AAP holds that public
policies can and should encourage voluntary
involvement of parents ..., but specific laws
mandating notification ... are counterproductive.
MR. MITTMAN explained that the American Academy of Family
Physicians (AAFP), the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists (ACOG), the AMA, and the American Public Health
Association (APHA), as well as the Society for Adolescent
Medicine (SAM), all oppose laws like HB 35. Furthermore, while
HB 35 can't force teenagers to talk to their parents, it may
force them to seek illegal, unsafe abortions or even consider
suicide. Another problem with the proposed legislation includes
the judicial bypass provision, because it isn't a real solution:
a scared, pregnant teenager is not going to navigate a crowded
court system and reveal intimate details about her life to an
unfamiliar judge in an impersonal courtroom. There are also
problems with the requirements outlined in the abuse exception;
for example, the mandatory notarization and corroboration
requirements are so difficult for a teenager to comply with that
the exception is essentially meaningless.
MR. MITTMAN noted that a comprehensive review, released today,
of published research on the effects of laws like HB 35 finds
that such laws do little to reduce teenage abortion or pregnancy
rates; there is no evidence that these laws affect parent-child
communication, whereas there is some evidence that they instead
cause harm to teenagers. The real answer to teenage pregnancy
and reducing abortion, he opined, starts with caring families.
As a state, Alaska should try to foster an atmosphere that
ensures Alaska's daughters can always go to their parents, but
the ACLU of Alaska must oppose any measure that would delay or
stop Alaska's teenagers from seeking counseling and medical
care. In conclusion, he said: "We ask you to protect the
health and safety of our teenagers and vote 'Do not pass' on
HB 35. Thank you."
MR. MITTMAN, in response to a question, explained that the ACLU
of Alaska has a difficult mandate and one client - the U.S.
Constitution and the Alaska State Constitution - and therefore
finds that when it is confronted with difficult questions, it is
not a question of one right versus another but rather often a
question of competing rights. So when discussing the issue of
"life," in addition to being a personal question for many
people, the ACLU of Alaska's position does not necessarily
pertain - at least with this bill - to the issues of abortion or
choice, but instead pertains to the rights of the teenager whose
life is at risk with the unwanted pregnancy she's facing. With
difficult decisions, the ACLU of Alaska has to weigh the many
conflicting rights of individuals, societal interests, and, in
the end, it turns to the constitutions to determine what they
mandate, and in the case of HB 35, the ACLU of Alaska believes
that the constitutions mandate that teenagers must have the
right to seek necessary medical care.
MR. MITTMAN, in response to another question, said that the ACLU
of Alaska believes that HB 35 pertains to the issue of
protecting the health and safety of teenagers; HB 35 addresses
teenagers that may need medical care and/or medical counseling,
and its focus is on what do teenagers - those whose family
situation involves violence, abuse, incest - need and require
from the State of Alaska. In this case, the ACLU of Alaska
asserts that what such teenagers don't need is a law that puts
them at greater risk, but rather a law that will support their
right to take care of their own health and safety.
1:19:26 PM
MR. MITTMAN, in response to a further question, acknowledged
that one of the issues being raised pertains to when might a
teenager need parental involvement for medical care, and offered
that this again requires consideration of conflicting rights.
The obstacles - the real world problems - in seeking medical
care and the medical issues that must be confronted are very
different for a teenager who is experiencing an unwanted
pregnancy than they are for a teenager who has a headache.
Instead of just putting up with a headache, the pregnant
teenager is facing either an illegal, unsafe abortion or going
through with an unwanted pregnancy, and so what the courts do,
and what the constitutions mandate [they do], is balance the
interests, balance the obstacles, and balance the risks.
Clearly, the risks posed by an illegal abortion - such as the
death of the pregnant teenager - are much greater than the risk
posed by a headache causing temporary suffering.
MR. MITTMAN, in response to another question, pointed out that
if an adolescent were in school, suffered from a case of
appendicitis, and had to be rushed to the hospital on an
emergency basis, all states have an emergency exception to
parental consent/notification. If a hospital is faced with a
teenager who has an emergency, life-threatening condition, of
course the hospital will provide the necessary medical care. In
life-threatening situations, where the courts have determined
that the health and safety of a teenager is at risk, the role of
the parent to be involved is bypassed; it's clear that what's
medically necessary must be performed. In response to yet
another question, he reiterated that what the courts do and what
the ACLU of Alaska looks at is the reality of the situation,
and, although abortion is an elective procedure, the courts also
look at the medical reality. With appendicitis, if the person
were not to be operated upon, he/she would face death, and
published medical research illustrates that when a teenager is
prevented from having an abortion, she may do something that
threatens her own life. Again, the courts try to balance the
reality of the situation.
CHAIR RAMRAS characterized that argument as subjective.
1:22:02 PM
MR. MITTMAN, in response to another question, explained that
there are peer-reviewed, scientific-journal articles regarding
medical facts alone which consider whether, with the passage of
a parental consent/notification law, although there might be 1
or 2 teenagers who could possibly go to a parent, there could
also be 30, 40, 50, or 100 teenagers who would seek an unsafe,
illegal abortion rather than face their parent, and those
reports are finding that yes, there is greater evidence of the
latter. In response to comments, he opined that in passing
legislation, the legislature has the responsibility of caring
for society as a whole. In an ideal world, there would be
individuals available to help every family, to help every
teenager, but the reality is that the legislature must pass the
best laws it can while considering the available evidence. So
if there are only going to be 1 or 2 individuals who would be
helped by a particular piece of legislation, but 30, or 40, or
100 individuals who would be harmed, then, on balance, the
legislature ought to find that the harm of such a law would be
greater than the benefit, and, in that case, should argue that
it would constitute poor public policy and thus shouldn't be
passed.
MR. MITTMAN indicated his belief that [HB 35] would negatively
affect the most vulnerable teenagers: those who don't have
support networks, who don't have caring families, who are living
in situations involving violence and/or abuse. His point, he
relayed, is that the medical studies have found that on balance,
the harm outweighs any benefit. In response to a request, he
reiterated that a comprehensive review of published research on
the effects of laws like HB 35 finds that such laws do little to
reduce teenage abortion or pregnancy rates. He said it is clear
that the intent of HB 35 is to support teenagers and families,
adding that the ACLU of Alaska agrees with that goal but is
merely arguing that there is a better way to accomplish it.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he disagrees with Mr. Mittman's point of view.
1:27:08 PM
CAYLEIGH ALLEN relayed that she is against HB 35, offering her
understanding that there are only a few cases in which minors
don't already involve their parents in the decision to have an
abortion, and surmising that HB 35 will only have an impact on
those few cases that involve children who are living in
difficult family situations with unsupportive parents who aren't
capable of making good judgments and thus shouldn't be given
priority in such a decision. Requiring minors in such
situations to go through the court system or prove abuse only
through the third parties listed in the bill is a huge and
unreasonable burden to place on pregnant minors, and is a
violation of their privacy as well. If the goal is to reduce
the number of abortions occurring in Alaska - a goal that she
said she thinks everyone one can agree upon - then the better
approach, instead of putting restrictions on minors who are
already pregnant, would be to put time and resources into
lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies and teenage
pregnancies to begin with. Better to provide comprehensive sex
education, education about contraceptives, and access to
contraceptives. In conclusion, she offered her belief that the
important issue to be considering is the health and safety of
Alaska's teenagers, and opined that HB 35 doesn't support that
concept.
1:29:05 PM
ALICE SMOKER said she opposes HB 35, which, she opined, has
effectively already been declared unconstitutional,
discriminates against young women by negating their right to
freely choose their own reproductive health care, and provides
as an alternative to parental consent a costly and logistically
unrealistic process that is narrowly applicable and only further
violates a young women's right to privacy. She offered her
understanding that the arguments in favor of HB 35, as outlined
in the dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood of Alaska,
include that it is in the State's interest to protect the right
and obligation of parents to be involved in their children's
lives, and to protect minors from their own immaturity, and cite
as example that many rights are not conferred to minors, such as
the right to vote, to get a tattoo, or to consent to get his/her
teeth cleaned.
MS. SMOKER, noting that she would not be here testifying if
HB 35 was merely about a minor's right to get her teeth cleaned
without parental consent, characterized the bill as taking away
a person's much more fundamental right than many of the other
rights that are conferred upon adults by the government, that
being the natural right of a woman to privately make her own
reproductive choices, and as instead conferring that right upon
her parents if the woman is a minor. This is wrong, Ms. Smoker
opined; instead, it is the State's obligation to protect, rather
than erode, the natural rights of its citizens. For example,
while it is not the norm, neither is it unheard of in some
communities in the nation for parents to coerce their minor
daughters into marrying at a young age, even against their will
or to a person they do not desire. In such a situation, she
remarked, "we feel obliged as a society to intervene in some way
because we recognize that this coercion violates the natural
right of young women to marry freely when and to whom they
choose."
MS. SMOKER opined that reproductive choice is another such
natural right, and that therefore it would be wrong for the
State to allow a woman of any age to be coerced into having an
abortion, and it would be wrong for the State to allow a woman
of any age to be coerced into carrying a pregnancy to term even
if it is her own parents who are doing the coercing. Passage of
HB 35 won't just endorse the naturally-coercive parent-child
relationship; it will take it one step further by legalizing a
parent's veto power over a young woman's most fundamental right
- [choosing her own] reproductive destiny. Just as it is not
feasible for a parent to have veto power over his/her minor
child's sex life, it is not natural for a parent to have veto
power over his/her daughter's reproductive destiny. She said
she feels it would be sad to pass the proposed law in a society
that claims to value young women and tells them that they own
their own bodies, but then in this most crucial and fundamental
aspect tells them they don't. In the interest of protecting the
natural rights of Alaska's minors and the health and wellbeing
of young women and children, she said, she urges the committee
not to pass HB 35.
1:32:34 PM
LISA EAGAN-LAGERQUIST, after noting that she is opposed to
HB 35, relayed that she is a concerned parent and a former high
school teacher who taught in the "CHOICE program" - a program
for teenagers at risk of not graduating - for three years, and a
former middle school teacher in Sacramento, California, and
therefore has a fair bit of experience with teenagers. She
opined that HB 35 would be very detrimental to those teenagers
who cannot talk to their parents. All parents want what's best
for their children, have dreams for them, and want to be able to
talk with their teenagers. However, that's not reality. There
are a lot of children who cannot talk to their parents - they
are afraid of their parents or their parents are not available
to them; for teenagers in such a situation, HB 35 is horrible,
she opined.
MS. EAGAN-LAGERQUIST relayed that she hopes her son, when he is
older - and her daughter, should she have one in the future -
will be willing to talk to her. However, if her children decide
that they can't talk to her, she added, she needs to trust that
their judgment about their healthcare is good and that she has
given them the right resources to make their own judgment. To
protect teenagers and keep them safe and healthy, she opined,
HB 35 must be blocked from passage. The bill targets teenagers
who can't talk to their parents and puts them in jeopardy, but
won't actually force teenagers to talk to their parents. She
said she has seen teenagers who are afraid of their parents, and
teenagers who rarely see their parents, and surmised that
passing legislation mandating that teenagers speak to their
parents about an unplanned pregnancy will not work, but will
instead drive teenagers to make other choices such as committing
suicide and seeking illegal and therefore unsafe abortions;
teenagers will find ways to abort if they do not want to have a
baby.
MS. EAGAN-LAGERQUIST said that no bill will force teenagers to
communicate with their parents; good communication between
parents and teenagers takes a lifetime to foster - years of
building trust - and, therefore, by the time a child becomes a
teenager, if such a relationship doesn't already exist, then HB
35 won't create one. In conclusion, she asked the committee to
protect the health and safety of teenagers by not passing HB 35.
1:36:35 PM
SUZANNE FORSLING said she is very much in favor of HB 35.
Referring to the argument that pregnant teenagers will miss out
on educational opportunities, she offered her belief that
options such as homeschooling will suffice, adding that she
herself, as a single parent with five children, went on to
college and maintained a grade point average (GPA) of 3.0 in
physics. She then expressed her belief that the aforementioned
[articles/reports/studies] were produced by people and entities
that make money off of performing abortions, and thus she
questions their perspective. She added, "This is a very, very
important, very moral, and often very religions decision within
a family." No one, she observed, is speaking on behalf of those
who've gotten teenage girls pregnant, and questioned how men can
be expected to protect their families when they are not given a
say with regard to protecting their [unborn children].
MS. FORSLING said that allowing a minor to get an abortion
without parental consent reduces the opportunity for parents to
convey their religious beliefs [about abortion]; for example,
noting that she is Catholic, she offered her belief that if [one
of her children] were to get an abortion, it would be really
hard to reconcile that fact with her faith - it would be a
problem for eternity. Abortion raises a lot of issues, and
parents need to have an opportunity to talk to their children.
All teenagers are going to object to having to tell their
parents something they wish to keep private, but this shouldn't
preclude parents from having the opportunity, legally, to
participate with their children in important, moral, and
physical decisions, such as those necessitated by an unwanted
teenage pregnancy. Abortion is a medical procedure and involves
a deeply moral issue. Abortion doesn't just concern the
pregnant minor; in addition to the pregnant minor, there is the
unborn baby to consider, the person who got the minor pregnant,
the parents of both the minor and the person who got her
pregnant, as well as others who would be related to the unborn
baby. Families need to be supported and supportive in such
situations.
MS. FORSLING, in response to questions, opined that parents
should have the right, legally, to be notified when such a
"severely moral and physical" medical procedure is about to take
place; that ultimately, regardless of what the pregnant minor
wishes, her parents should have the final say in what occurs,
because their daughter is a minor; that the person who got the
minor pregnant has rights as well; that his rights are greater
than those of the pregnant minor's parents; and that paying
child support is an important aspect of parental responsibility.
1:42:43 PM
AARON K. "KIT" DAHLSTROM testified that as the parent of two
daughters and two sons, he wants to know exactly what his
children are doing. Regardless that prior testimony has
indicated that there are a lot of parents who are mean to their
children or beat their children, he offered his belief that
there are a lot of kids who are mean to their parents and lie,
cheat, steal, and do everything they can to harm their parents
even though their parents are very good people who are trying
their best to help their children. Without passage of HB 35,
the family unit is being eroded and destroyed, because the
[court ruling] has taken away minors' responsibility for the
consequences of their actions, he opined; pregnant minors have
already shown that they don't have good judgment and have made
mistakes and therefore need the help of responsible adults -
their parents - to help them make a decision about their
pregnancies, a decision which should be made by responsible
adults - again, their parents.
MR. DAHLSTROM surmised that if his son, back when he was 16, had
vandalized someone's property and been caught, the judge would
have made Mr. Dahlstrom responsible for paying restitution even
though it was his son making the bad decision. Under the court
ruling [in Planned Parenthood of Alaska], a minor could make a
bad decision that results in her getting pregnant but would be
alleviated of the consequences of her actions - actions that
resulted from her bad judgment - and that's not the way to go,
he opined. In conclusion, he said he is highly in favor of
HB 35.
MR. DAHLSTROM, in response to questions, said he believes that
when a minor becomes pregnant, her parents, regardless of what
her wishes might be and regardless of her age - either now or at
the time when her baby might be born - should have the final say
regarding whether she gets an abortion, because they are
legally, financially, and morally responsible for her [and her
baby] until she reaches the age of majority.
1:56:23 PM
SIDNEY HEIDERSDORF, President, Alaskans For Life, Inc., said he
would be speaking in support of HB 35, and that his organization
believes that the bill constitutes good public policy. He
shared his opinion that the support for and protection of
abortion in society leads to many problems. Given the
importance of parents in the upbringing of their children, it is
disturbing to him, he relayed, to have people argue against
forcing abortion facilities and school counselors to consult
with parents regarding serious medical care for their children.
He characterized this as a problem, and surmised that it is the
result of various court actions such as the "[U.S.] Supreme
Court raising abortion to the level of a constitutional right"
and the Alaska Supreme Court referring to the Alaska State
Constitution's privacy clause.
MR. HEIDERSDORF said he doesn't believe that either the U.S.
Constitution or the Alaska State Constitution allows or permits
the kinds of things that the courts have said are permitted -
namely the killing of a baby in the womb. Responsible parents,
he opined, must reject the concept that the care and concern of
a parent for a child can be preempted by what he termed "so-
called privacy rights," adding his belief that when the courts
make decisions based on what he considers to be flawed
[premises], the courts will only be drawing faulty conclusions.
Allowing children to have serious medical procedures performed
without parental guidance runs counter to everything people know
about the importance of the parent-child relationship in child
upbringing. Parental consent is required in myriad situations
involving children, yet abortion and contraception appear to be
the only exceptions though they have lifelong ramifications -
especially abortion, which constitutes a life and death decision
with lifelong physical, mental, and emotional effects.
MR. HEIDERSDORF said his organization believes that instituting
a parental consent requirement would constitute good public
policy because it would protect children and support the concept
of family, family wherein parents are responsible for minor
children who are not mature enough make decisions about
appropriate medical care. Parents, he opined, have the best
interests of their children at heart, but for the extreme cases
in which this is not true, the bill contains a judicial bypass
provision. The legislature's role is to legislate for the
common good of society, and that includes protecting the rights
of good parents who want the best for their children. In
conclusion, he encouraged the committee to consider HB 35
favorably.
MR. HEIDERSDORF, in response to questions, offered his belief
that no one should have the right to obtain an abortion, and
that parents may or may not have a financial obligation to
support their minor child's offspring, just as they may or may
not have a financial obligation to support their adult child's
offspring. He expressed support for anyone's decision to have a
child instead of an abortion.
2:03:00 PM
ELIZABETH ROLL, M.D., relayed that she would be speaking in
opposition to HB 35, adding that she is a physician serving
rural Alaska and the mother of two small children. She said
that she works hard as both a parent and a doctor to foster good
communication, both with her own children and with her patients
and their families. She relayed that in her practice as a
family physician in rural Alaska, she sees many teenagers with
unwanted pregnancies; in most of these cases, she sees both the
parents and the children working really well together, talking
about the options and making a decision. However, she added,
she also sees a small group of teenage patients who don't feel -
either for safety reasons or for other reasons - that they can
talk to or work with their parents, and HB 35 targets those
teenagers, placing significant barriers in front of them even
though they don't feel they can talk with their parents about an
abortion.
DR. ROLL surmised that [these barriers] would increase the risk
that teenagers will delay seeking either medical care or
abortion services until later on in their pregnancy, or could
force teenagers into having a baby that they do not want. She
said that as a physician, she has cared for many teenagers who
have hidden their pregnancy, delaying their medical care - both
prenatal care and any "options-counseling" available to them.
This sort of hiding and subsequent delay can develop into many
different types of tragedies as the pregnancy progresses, and
makes everything more complicated for both the minor's parents
and the minor. She said she wants Alaska's teenagers -
throughout the state but especially in rural Alaska - to be
healthy and safe.
DR. ROLL pointed out that providing good birth control options,
counseling, et cetera, could help towards eliminating the
problem of unwanted pregnancy to begin with. However, when an
unwanted pregnancy does occur, and a teenager seeks an abortion,
she needs to be able to have that option. House Bill 35 targets
only a small group of teenagers - teenagers living in troubled
families - and creates significant barriers to accessing medical
care. She offered her belief that people need to rethink the
concept of providing birth control education throughout the
state, and that HB 35 should be opposed since it doesn't target
the appropriate populations.
DR. ROLL, in response to questions, said that when her children
become teenagers, she would try to encourage them to talk to her
about difficult issues, but if they were still unwilling to do
so, she would suggest to them that they speak with someone they
were comfortable talking with such as one of their aunts; that
if, in the end, one of her children chooses to have an abortion
and have others help her, Dr. Roll said she would be fine with
that decision; and that she agrees that speaking with someone is
preferable to not speaking with anyone. To illustrate, she
recounted:
I've seen situations where teens, again, have been
concerned and scared to talk to their own families
about pregnancies; they've hid their pregnancies
[until] very late, and they were very unhappy being
pregnant. They were talking about suicide, they were
talking about ... trying to get an abortion by taking
a bunch of pills, they've ... talked about lots of
different other options, which are just really
concerning for their safety. It's better for a teen,
if they're in a situation where they need help, to be
able to turn to someone they trust, and,
unfortunately, especially in rural Alaska, especially
... [in the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta area], there's a
large amount of domestic violence, there's a large
amount of sexual abuse [of a minor crimes, so] it may
not be that the person that they feel they can go to
is one of their parents - it may be a parent who's
perpetrated sexual abuse. We need to not have this
bill, as this bill will not help those teens at all.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to the word "unemancipated" as
used in proposed AS 18.16.010(a)(3), and asked whether a minor
could become emancipated on her own, or whether emancipation
requires a court order.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said yes [to the latter].
2:09:30 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to the language in proposed AS
18.16.020(a)(4) that read in part, "the minor is the victim of
physical abuse, sexual abuse, or a pattern of emotional abuse
committed by one or both of the minor's parents ...", and opined
that that language should alleviate the concerns expressed by
Dr. Roll.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that in order to
bypass the notice and consent provisions of the bill, a minor
could simply either become emancipated by demonstrating self
sufficiency to the court, or could demonstrate to the court that
she has been neglected or abused.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, however, that the language
of proposed AS 18.16.035(b), reads:
In addition to emancipation by other means provided by
law, denial of financial support by a parent, legal
guardian, or custodian who has a legal duty of support
for purposes of coercing a minor to have an abortion
shall be sufficient evidence of emancipation status of
the minor for purposes of AS 18.16.010 - 18.16.090.
2:12:05 PM
TAMMIE WILSON relayed that as a parent, she is totally in favor
of HB 35. Whether to have an abortion constitutes a major
decision, one that in some cases is being made by a child, and
HB 35, she opined, addresses the right of a parent to be
involved in what could potentially be one of the biggest life-
changing decisions anyone, particularly a child, may ever make.
Such a decision, in addition to its physical implications, has
mental and psychological implications. How, as a parent, is she
to help her child if she isn't even informed that an abortion
has taken place? If there are medical complications, who's
responsible, and what symptoms should she be looking for?
Please do not punish good parents because of the actions of a
few, she requested.
MS. WILSON indicated that her right as a parent has been taken
away [by the courts] - teenagers, for a reason, shouldn't be
allowed to make these kinds of decisions. She said she would
hope that if her daughter had became pregnant while she was
still a minor, that she would have come to her for help, because
[her goal is to be] able to make decisions for her children.
The issue of civil liberties or competing rights doesn't apply
to children, she opined, because as a parent, she is responsible
for them. She said she doesn't trust the judgment of teenagers
because they don't have the capacity to make "these types of
decisions." Regardless that some children are abused, [the
government] shouldn't be taking away her right as a parent to
help her children make good decisions, and that is exactly what
will occur, she surmised, if HB 35 is not passed into law. In
conclusion, she asked the committee to please pass HB 35 and
allow parents to do the best they can for those whom they love
the most.
2:15:22 PM
KASSI GRUNDER said she opposes HB 35 because she feels that
every woman has the right to make her own decisions, especially
the big ones in her life. Ms. Grunder said that although she
agrees with Ms. Wilson's statement that good parents can help
their teenagers make hard decisions, what is at issue here is
protecting those children who don't have good parents whom they
can go to. Those teenagers who already have good communication
with their parents don't need this type of legislation, and
hopefully their parents have established a rapport with them and
are teaching them the real facts about sex at home; this will
help ensure that if a teenager gets into trouble, she will be
able to ask her parents for help and get good advice. However,
a lot of teenagers don't have such a relationship or such
parents, and this is a really tough place for a teenager to be
in.
MS. GRUNDER mentioned that at her last job as a victim advocate
at Standing Together Against Rape (STAR), she had many teenage
clients who could not go to their parents. Regardless that the
Office of Children's Services (OCS) discovers some of the
instances of sexual abuse of a minor crimes occurring in the
home, there are still many victimized teenagers who have to make
a choice between winding up in State custody - a hard path to
take; moving out onto the streets; or staying in an abusive
home. She mentioned that she's met a lot of teenagers who
choose to stay in abusive homes because they are subject to less
abuse there than they would be living out on the street. Those
teenagers who are already making the decision to have sex, she
opined, need to also be able to make their own decisions
regarding their reproductive health and wellbeing if they then
become pregnant. Mandating parental consent will delay a
teenager obtaining important medical services - whether abortion
services or prenatal services - and this delay - of days or even
weeks - is especially critical for a teenager living in a rural
area of the state.
MS. GRUNDER, in response to a question, surmised that [for
reproductive purposes], a girl becomes a woman at first
menstruation.
2:20:19 PM
GAIL McCANN relayed that as a parent, she supports HB 35, and
questioned whether all those who are in opposition to the bill
are actually parents. She opined that parents should be
notified prior to an "abortion decision being made."
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MS. McCANN expressed disfavor with [laws] that erode and hinder
the functioning of the family unit, and opined that parents have
the right to address each situation individually without
legislative interference. If a parent's decision regarding
abortion were in conflict with that of the pregnant minor, the
minor would still be able to go through the courts and would
therefore not be left without options. Parents should be part
of the process, however a situation plays itself out, and that's
what HB 35 is about. She offered her belief that for those
teenagers who cannot - with good reason - speak to their
parents, the judicial bypass procedure outlined in the bill is
sufficient. In conclusion, she said she wants to see HB 35
supported and passed.
MS. McCANN, in response to questions, said she has not had
dealings with the court system but is familiar with the way it
functions; that she would not look forward to having to deal
with the court system under the circumstances outlined in the
bill; and that she finds having to deal with [laws] superseding
her function as a parent appalling.
2:24:30 PM
JEANETTE LACEY DUNN - after noting that she will be graduating
with a Master of Social Work (MSW) degree in May, is currently
working as a case manager at Bartlett Regional Hospital, and is
a mother - relayed that earlier today she attended an "adoption
training," during which one of the exercises involved imagining
that she was 18 years of age and unexpectedly pregnant, what she
would do, and who she would want to tell. The first person that
came to her mind to tell, she relayed, was her mother, adding
that she is very fortunate to have that kind of relationship
with her mother. Another exercise involved imagining what she
would do and what she would want if her own child became
pregnant unintentionally. Her hope, she relayed, was that her
child would be able to come to her and explain what's happened,
but she recognizes that ultimately her child would need to be
able to make that choice.
MS. LACEY DUNN said that although she is lucky enough to have a
relationship with her parents that allows her to confide in
them, there are a great many teenagers who are not lucky in that
regard, either because of safety concerns or because of a lack
of parental involvement, and she believes that HB 35 really
targets those teenagers with limited resources, limited support,
and more challenges. House Bill 35, she opined, places an
unfair additional burden on such teenagers. With regard to the
comment that abortion involves a moral issue requiring parental
involvement, she offered her belief that parents should be
instilling their morals while their children are growing up
rather than waiting until their children become pregnant; if
there is already a good parent-child relationship, then those
children will be able to go to their parents.
MS. LACEY DUNN, with regard to the comment that teenagers should
have to bear the consequences of their actions, opined that
pregnancy and/or any resulting births shouldn't be seen as
"consequences." Teenagers should be able to make a choice, and
the various circumstances in which people find themselves should
be respected. In conclusion, she said she is in opposition to
HB 35.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES noted that her mother died when she was a
teenager and that although she is extremely close to her father,
she would not have wanted to speak to him about sex or other
female gynecological issues, and would have instead preferred to
speak with the other women in her life. She surmised that a
pregnant teenager is more likely to speak with her mother if she
has one or has one that she can speak to, but not all teenagers
are so lucky.
MS. LACEY DUNN said that she has seen too many young girls who
don't have parents who are there for them, either during or
after their pregnancy, and reiterated her belief that HB 35 will
place an unfair burden on those teenagers. In response to
questions, she agreed to research the code of ethics of social
workers to see if it addresses any of the issues raised by the
bill, and acknowledged that even less-than-ideal parents have
rights.
2:31:35 PM
PATRICIA FINK relayed that her daughter had an abortion while
she was a college student, but she and her husband were not
notified and thus were not given the opportunity to participate
in what she characterized as perhaps the most difficult decision
of their then-young daughter's life; even though she and her
husband have a good relationship with their daughter, and
wouldn't have persuaded her to choose one path over another,
because they were not notified, they weren't there, as parents,
to provide comfort and assistance during that time. Ms. Fink
offered her belief that her daughter's decision back then has
resulted in emotional scars that are still evident. She noted
that when she was a teacher, she wasn't even allowed to provide
aspirin to a student without parental consent, but that now some
states allow an abortion - which she characterized as the most
egregious procedure, and potentially risky - to be performed [on
a minor] without notifying her family.
MS. FINK, with regard to the argument that the parent may be the
abuser, questioned why that fact shouldn't be brought out into
the open, with the involvement of the parents. She shared her
belief that the current situation has diminished her right as a
parent as well as the rights of other parents, people who have
cared for and supported the pregnant minor from birth. At least
one parent should be notified, she opined, so that help with
this difficult decision can be provided to the pregnant minor,
particularly given that it is the parents who end up paying what
she called the emotional bill.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MS. FINK, in response to comments, offered her belief that if a
situation involving child abuse is not brought out into the
open, the abuse will simply continue.
2:37:52 PM
MARIA RENSEL, relaying that she supports HB 35, expressed her
hope that members will all vote "Yes" on the bill. She said she
agrees with Ms. McCann's comments, particularly that of being
appalled at having to defend the basic rights of parents. She
shared her belief that parents of minor children should have the
right to make the decision with regard to all medical procedures
involving their children, and doesn't believe that a child's
right to privacy trumps parental rights. She indicated that she
also agrees with Mr. Heidersdorf's comments, and offered her
belief that the [U.S.] Constitution guarantees the right to
life, and thus "we" ought to err on the side of the right to
life - the right of the unborn child to be born. She also
offered her belief that those who are opposed to the bill simply
want to encourage more abortions by making it simpler to get one
- without giving the child in the womb a chance at that basic,
guaranteed right, the right to life - and are using emotional
arguments to justify their position, such as that those who want
an abortion but feel they can't get one will resort to self-
induced abortions.
MS. RENSEL opined that those opposed to the bill are also
attempting to make people believe that the legislature
[shouldn't] pass laws protecting parents' right to counsel their
minor children. The very definition of a minor, she remarked,
is a person who hasn't achieved the age of majority, and thus it
is absolutely a parent's right to influence his/her child with
regard to morals and religious beliefs. In conclusion, she
surmised that there are a lot of constitutional arguments in
favor of passing HB 35, and reiterated her hope that the members
will vote "Yes" on it.
2:41:44 PM
MIKE PRAX offered his belief that the concerns expressed by
prior speakers regarding a lack of communication ought to be
given serious consideration, particularly since the [proposed]
law would be applied in situations wherein parents and children
are not communicating and/or where there is some trouble,
surmising that in situations where there is good communication,
the proposed law won't come into play. However, what must also
be recognized is that a pregnant minor needs help - as do her
parents - and [HB 35], he surmised, will address such
situations, and will probably force some decisions and force
some people to communicate, which he characterized as a good
thing regardless that it might come at a very delicate time. He
offered his belief that HB 35 will also address situations in
which a pregnant minor wants an abortion and her parents don't
agree, by allowing the minor to go before the court and prove
that she is capable of making such a decision and doesn't need
protection from her own immaturity, [one of] the objectives of
the [proposed] law. In conclusion, he indicated that he
supports the [HB 35], and characterized its passage as very
necessary.
2:45:04 PM
KAREN LEWIS, Executive Director, Alaska Right to Life, after
mentioning that there are almost 50,000 households in her
organization's database, offered her understanding that
approximately 1.2 million abortions are performed every year in
the U.S., with approximately 20 percent of those being performed
on teenagers. She also offered her understanding that the
Guttmacher Institute estimates that approximately 40 percent of
the abortions performed on teenagers take place without parental
involvement; as a result, the parents of those teenagers have no
advanced warning of the potential physical and/or emotional
complications associated with abortion, and thus can unwittingly
exacerbate the problems experienced by teenagers who have an
abortion, such as depression, anger, and substance abuse. The
cost of concealing an abortion can be dreadfully high, she
remarked; for example, a 16-year-old from Maryland and a 13-
year-old from New York both died from complications arising from
abortions performed without the knowledge of their parents, and
a 14-year-old from Missouri with a history of psychiatric
problems committed suicide after having an abortion without her
mother's knowledge/consent.
MS. LEWIS offered her belief that abortion advocates continue to
fight laws that could help prevent such tragedies. Teenagers,
she remarked, are more likely to report higher levels of feeling
misinformed during pre-abortion counseling, less satisfaction
with abortion services, and greater post-abortion stress; such
teenagers consider the abortion procedure itself to be stressful
and associated with feelings of guilt, depression, and a sense
of isolation. She asserted that studies illustrate that
abortions performed on teenagers have been linked to problems
such as substance abuse and suicide, that teenagers who have
abortions are two to four more times likely to commit suicide,
and that half of the teenagers who get an abortion suffer a
worsening of psychosocial functioning within seven months after
the abortion. In addition, abortions appeared to have the
greatest immediate impact on those teenagers under the age of 17
and on those with existing psychosocial problems; symptoms
include self-reproach, depression, social regression,
withdrawal, obsession with the need to become pregnant again,
and hasty marriages. Teenagers are more likely to develop
psychological problems and are generally in need of more
counseling and guidance with regard to an abortion than are
adult women.
MS. LEWIS offered her understanding that teenagers who get
abortions are more likely than older women to be admitted to
mental health hospitals, and are twice as likely to experience
cervical lacerations. A pregnant teenager, she remarked, is
more vulnerable than she will most likely ever be again, and
therefore needs her parents all the more. In conclusion, she
said:
Parents overwhelmingly give loving guidance and solid
advice to their children, especially in crisis
situations, and for the courts and Planned Parenthood
and others involved in the abortion industry to
believe that an underage child can bear the full
burden of an abortion decision and the weight of guilt
from that decision along with lifelong damages
incurred from the abortion is simply outrageous and
completely irresponsible.
2:50:21 PM
KEN ERBEY opined that the only parents who should be given the
right to give consent before their teenage daughters can get an
abortion are the parents who were involved in their teenage
daughters' lives enough to have given consent for their teenage
daughters to get pregnant in the first place. Supporters of
HB 35 claim that the bill addresses parents' rights, and that
parents should have the right to impose their values and morals
upon their children. However, HB 35 is not a parents' rights
bill, but is instead a, "Let's close the barn door after the
horse has already escaped" bill; the time for parents to impose
their values and morals upon their teenage daughters is before
their daughters get pregnant, not afterwards, he opined.
MR. ERBEY offered his understanding that the Alaska Supreme
Court has already determined that the existing parental consent
statute is unconstitutional in that it burdened a minor girl's
fundamental right to reproductive freedom. If HB 35 were truly
about parents' rights, then why does it attempt to deny parental
rights to the pregnant teenager? Why does it take away her
fundamental right to choose whether or not she wants to become a
parent in the first place? House Bill 35 has everything to do
with abortion, he surmised, and allows big government to intrude
and deny the rights and freedoms of its citizens, specifically
the fundamental right of reproductive freedom. It's countries
like China, he opined, that deny its citizens the fundamental
right of reproductive freedom; "if you have one child in China,
you're not allowed to have another - the government intrudes and
takes away your rights."
MR. ERBEY questioned why the parents of a pregnant minor need
the government's involvement if they are only going to give
consent for their daughter to get an abortion anyway. Why do
they need HB 35? He added:
I can see why "Joe Sixpack" - who can't tell you where
his daughter is half the time or even the names of her
best friends, let alone the fact that she's gotten
herself pregnant - would need House Bill 35. It lets
the government do his parenting for him. Joe Sixpack
rarely communicates with his daughter, especially
about responsible sexual behavior. After all, if she
doesn't know about responsible sexual behavior, he
hopes, [then] ... she'll be abstinent. As we've all
seen recently, hoping that his daughter will be
abstinent can only be described as "not realistic at
all."
MR. ERBEY opined that if the supporters of HB 35 are truly
concerned about parenting and about government-mandated forced
family communication, then, instead of forcing teenage daughters
to have a conversation that has been described as harder than
labor and nauseating, the supporters of the bill should instead
make efforts to "prevent the horse from escaping in the first
place" by legislating prevention of teenage pregnancy to begin
with. Instead of working on unrealistic policies, he suggested,
work on proven prevention strategies such as comprehensive sex
education. "Let's communicate and teach our kids the
consequences of engaging in sexual behavior, before they go out
and find out on their own, before a House Bill 35 is even
necessary," he added. In conclusion, he said:
If we're truly concerned about parents' rights and
pregnant teenage daughters, if we're truly concerned
about family communication, instead of passing a
parents' [rights] bill - House Bill 35 - let's instead
pass a parents' responsibility law - a true family
values law - that states if a teenage daughter gets
pregnant without her parents' consent, then the
parents should be held responsible, liable, and
negligent.
MR. ERBEY, in response to a question, said he believes that if
HB 35 is passed, the government will force pregnant teenagers to
communicate with their parents.
2:54:47 PM
DOUG McKINNIS, after noting that he is the father of five
children, asked the committee to vote "Yes" on HB 35. Noting
that parental consent is even required for hunter's education
classes, he remarked that should HB 35 fail, the State would
allow a teenager to kill her unborn child without parental
consent, but won't allow his minor children to learn how to kill
a rabbit without parental consent. He characterized this as
absurd, adding that he just doesn't see how any State lawmaker
could defend such a position. House Bill 35 addresses the
significant matter of teenage pregnancy and the major surgery of
abortion, and at issue is the question of whether parents should
be informed about their child's health and wellbeing when she is
facing a pregnancy and possibly major surgery.
MR. McKINNIS pointed out that pregnant teenagers face
loneliness, despair, and helplessness, and - in their young and
understandable immaturity - are forced to deal with frightful
imaginings of an extremely uncertain future. It is therefore
ludicrous, he opined, to be debating whether the parents of such
a teenager should be informed of her situation. Why would any
reasonable person have to consider, for even more than one
second, whether parental consent for a major surgical procedure
- in this case, abortion - is advisable? He offered his belief
that the merits of parental consent are now being debated simply
because supporters of abortion do not want to face the obstacle
of parental consent because it - and parents overall - interfere
with their agenda.
MR. McKINNIS opined that HB 35 addresses the majority of parents
- not a minority of teenagers. "Will we as a state encourage
the structure of our society to be based on the family, or will
we, like Plato, attempt to arrange society's structure to be
based on rule and decision-making by the trained professional?"
he queried. In conclusion, he suggested that the State
emphasize that parents have the right to make decisions on their
children's behalf, and again asked the committee to vote "Yes"
on HB 35.
2:59:32 PM
SHANA CARDOZA asked the committee to vote "Yes" on HB 35, adding
that she believes that parents have a right to their children's
medical history and all that their children are doing in terms
of receiving medical care.
3:00:31 PM
CHARLES ROHRBACHER, Deacon, Roman Catholic Diocese of Juneau,
relayed that the Catholic Church is pro-life - life from the
moment of conception until the moment of death - and supports HB
35, which attempts to balance the rights of parents with the
[Alaska State] Constitution. He noted that the bill contains
provisions addressing emergency situations and situations in
which it would be better for the court to act on behalf of the
minor in place of her parents, but ultimately allows "parents to
be parents" and be made aware of situations in which their
"often immature" children find themselves. One of the bill's
provisions that really struck him, he relayed, is [proposed AS
18.16.035, which] prohibits coercing a minor into having an
abortion, adding that he's counseled those who've been coerced
into having an abortion; that provision "speaks well of us" as a
state and as a society.
MR. ROHRBACHER asked the committee to support passing HB 35 from
committee. He posited that everyone shares the hope that the
number of abortions in the state and in society can be reduced,
and characterized the bill as a starting point for everyone to
be able to work together to further that goal without
undermining the relationship between parents and their minor
children and the authority that parents have with regard to this
"very important and vital" issue.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES surmised that an unplanned teenage
pregnancy can create a difficult situation for all involved.
She asked Mr. Rohrbacher whether he has any concerns about those
teenagers who can't or shouldn't speak to their parents about an
unplanned pregnancy.
MR. ROHRBACHER offered his understanding that the judicial
bypass provisions are meant to provide an option for such
teenagers, those who would be threatened with violence or other
forms of abuse if they were to tell their parents. In response
to another question, he said that abortion is a serious matter,
a matter of life and death for the unborn child, so regardless
of how frightening or daunting it might be for the pregnant
minor to have to go before the court, it's important to always
err on the side of life rather than against it. In response to
a further question, he said that his response if a pregnant
teenager were to come to him for advice but said she couldn't go
to her parents would be to discuss the options of adoption or
keeping the baby, and he would offer to go with her to discuss
the issue with her parents.
3:08:57 PM
ANNIE MEURLOTT read a letter signed by herself and some of her
neighbors [original punctuation, though with some formatting
changes, provided]:
We the undersigned Alaskan registered voters from
Fairbanks encourage the passage of HB 35 to require
parental consent for minors seeking abortions. We
realize that children are often pressured into making
decisions on life changing events without proper
consideration of the consequences. Parental consent
will help minors and parents to properly evaluate the
long term ramifications of abortion.
Parental consent can recognize the State's compelling
interest in "protecting minors from their own
immaturity and aiding parents in fulfilling their
parental responsibilities." In addition to parental
consent, HB 35 provides for a judicial bypass for
sexual abuse cases.
Parents are a child's first and most important
resource for assistance in decision-making. For that
reason, the state's interest in protecting children
from the consequences of their own immaturity, and in
so doing protecting the health of its children, and
its interest in supporting parents' right and duty to
guide the upbringing of their children is particularly
compelling.
The Alaska Parental Consent Act attempts to ensure
that pregnant minors who are sufficiently mature to
make the decision to obtain an abortion on their own
are allowed to do so while those who are not
sufficiently mature either obtain a parent's consent
or, in the case of parental abuse, a judicial
determination that the procedure is in their best
interest.
3:10:59 PM
AMY BOLLENBACK, after relaying that she taught psychology
classes for many years, noted that she's heard a lot of stories
from her female students about parental abuse - sexual and
otherwise - and is therefore not excited about a bill that
requires parental consent or parental notification. She said
she agrees with most of those testifying against HB 35,
especially with Dr. Roll, particularly given that a recent
article in the Anchorage Daily News quoted a memorandum from an
official of the Catholic Church written [long ago] that stated
it would be useful to send a pedophile priest to an Eskimo area
of Alaska because "they don't talk."
MS. BOLLENBACH expressed disbelief that the most abused
teenagers in Alaska would be talking to their parents about the
very abuse their parents have perpetrated. She suggested to
members that they imagine themselves as a shy, 13-year-old girl
living in a small village outside of Bethel, for example, whose
stepfather has been raping her and whose aunt is the health
aide. "Who are you going to talk to?" she queried; "If you talk
to your friends, [are any of them] going to know anything about
judicial bypass procedure?" Ms. Bollenbach surmised that none
of them would.
MS. BOLLENBACH relayed that in the one village outside of Bethel
that she has visited, there are only two telephones - one at the
school and one at the grocery store. "Are you going to go to
one of those two places to try to phone ... a judge?" she asked,
and surmised that the answer would be "no." Furthermore,
cellular phones don't work everywhere in Alaska. She said she
is unsure, therefore, how any judicial review of the situation
is going to take place. Adoption of a parental consent
requirement will be putting a barrier between a teenager living
in such a situation and the healthcare that she needs, opined
Ms. Bollenbach, and characterized that as wrong psychologically,
medically, and constitutionally.
3:13:59 PM
CHRIS FONTAINE, after relaying that she is associated with the
Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic (KBFPC) - a private,
nonprofit, community-based, reproductive health clinic - said
she is in opposition to HB 35 in part because she's had
experience working with those that this bill would most impact:
adolescent girls. When the KBFPC receives calls from adolescent
girls who have questions about reproductive health, birth
control, and abortion, she relayed, the KBFPC is often able to
resolve those calls simply by encouraging parental involvement,
and is in fact mandated by law to do so in order to screen for
things like domestic violence (DV) and sexual abuse of a minor
crimes. Often it is the parents making the appointments and/or
accompanying their daughter to her appointments.
MS. FONTAINE explained that she's also received a few calls from
minors who say they've taken pills or herbs or have allowed
someone to physically abuse them in order to induce an abortion.
Such girls - fortunately, very few - won't be able to access the
judicial bypass procedure outlined in the bill, because going
through the judicial system is a daunting task, especially for
someone experiencing domestic violence or sexual abuse. Such
girls, again, will be turning to those who are not healthcare
providers, and so may be getting information that could be
harmful to their health, or will seek an illegal abortion. In
conclusion, she said, "We would like to partner together, on
both sides of this issue, to decrease the number of [abortions
overall], but we should not do so by increasing the number of
illegal abortions or unwanted children."
3:18:38 PM
HANNAH FOREMAN, after relaying that she is 15 years old, asked
the committee to support HB 35. She offered her interpretation
of prior testimony to mean that some people believe that parents
give up their rights as parents once their children start making
their own choices with regard to reproductive behavior. Alaska
law doesn't agree with such a belief, she remarked. For
example, language in [Title 47] says in part that parents have
the "right to direct the child's medical care". This is just
one, among several, of the rights and responsibilities of
parents that the State of Alaska recognizes; parents have a very
unique authority over their children.
MS. FOREMAN mentioned that on the Department of Health and
Social Services' (DHSS) web site, language on page 2 of a
document titled, "PARENTAL RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES" says
that a parent has the legal right to make important decisions
about their child's life such as where the child shall live,
what the child can do from day to day, what school the child
will attend, when the child needs medical care, and what
religion, if any, the child will practice; and that these rights
extend until the child reaches the age of 18. Noting that
parental consent is currently required for many activities a
minor might wish to engage in, she asked that abortions for
minors not be made the exception to parental authority.
3:21:06 PM
JESSICA WELLER, Victim Advocate, Standing Together Against Rape
(STAR), relayed that she opposes HB 35. Mentioning that Ms.
Grunder has already touched on many of her concerns, Ms. Weller
referred to the language of proposed AS 18.16.020(a)(4) that
requires a minor seeking judicial bypass on the grounds of
sexual abuse to produce a notarized statement signed by herself
and a witness to the abuse who is a sibling 21 years of age or
older, a grandparent, or a stepparent. Pointing out that she's
worked with children who are victims of rape, she explained that
it is very unlikely that such children will be able to produce
such a witness in order to obtain judicial bypass.
3:22:19 PM
MEGH BARNETT explained that one of the premises of the social
workers' code of ethics is that of self determination: all
clients, regardless of age, have the right to determine what's
best for them, since they are the experts with regard to their
own lives. She opined that the same applies to pregnant minors
regardless that they might not have reached full maturity - they
are still the experts with regard to their own lives and
therefore need to have the right to make the best decisions for
themselves at that time. She offered her belief that HB 35 is
largely influenced by religion, and that maintaining the
separation between church and State is extremely important and
should be kept in mind when the legislature considers bills that
are based upon religion.
3:24:16 PM
NANCY BISHOP, after noting that she has recently been accepted
to medical school and intends to return to Alaska and practice
medicine, said that as a future physician, she wants to be able
to provide her patients with the best possible care. She said
that although she would be encouraging a pregnant teenager to
consult her parents in the decision-making process regarding an
unwanted pregnancy, ultimately her responsibility as a physician
will be to her patient; however, a government mandate requiring
parental consent would prohibit her and all other physicians
with their patients' best interests at heart from providing the
best possible care. Despite the best intentions, laws in other
states requiring parental consent for abortion have increased
the number of later-term abortions. She said she worries that
when access to healthcare is intimidating or prohibited, teens
will resort to any means available to have an abortion - such as
home remedies and "back alley" abortions - or will delay seeking
prenatal care. Alaskans already face significant obstacles in
accessing healthcare, particularly in rural communities, so why
would [the legislature] wish to place another barrier in front
of teenagers from rural Alaska who are dealing with unplanned
and unwanted pregnancies?
MS. BISHOP, in conclusion, said:
It makes me very disheartened and uncomfortable as a
future healthcare provider in Alaska to know that I
may not be able to provide my patients medical care
when they need it. It ... makes me question ...
[whether] I want to be a physician in Alaska, if we
are not keeping our daughters' health and safety in
mind. Clearly, I oppose HB 35. Thank you.
3:26:15 PM
JACKIE CASON shared that she is a survivor of child sexual
abuse, adding that it's a difficult thing to talk about. She
said:
It's interesting to hear characterizations of families
and the kinds of families that this sort of thing
happens in. Not all these families are people like
the "Pilgrims" in Alaska. I come from a fairly
ordinary family with loving parents [and siblings],
and you might ask, "How does this kind of thing
happen?" Well, I had an older sister who had a teen
pregnancy [and] who was trying to make ends meet; she
was working the swing shift, her husband was working
the day shift, and I as a teen was filling in the gaps
between the day and swing shift and babysitting,
preparing dinner - things like that - and I ended up
being the victim of his [sexual] abuse for a number of
years.
[The] fortunate thing was, I guess, [is] he'd had a
vasectomy and so I didn't end up pregnant, but it was
very difficult for me to tell anyone about this abuse.
In fact, in 35 years, I've never spoken about this
publicly. And ... I can only say one word as the
reason I probably never spoke out: is shame - sheer
and utter shame. It's very difficult to talk about
this thing; I can't imagine trying to go through a
judicial bypass procedure to get permission to ...
[get an abortion] I think the possible harm that
HB 35 could do is to delay action from a young person
in this situation and ... [delay her from] being able
to seek assistance and help from people who would
care.
Sure, my parents ... would've probably accepted me,
[though] at the time I didn't think so. But the fact
of the matter is, I can't imagine having borne a child
from this episode in my life and [then] face that
child each day as a reminder, because I sit before you
today healed but not completely whole - these wounds
kind of stay with you. Fortunately, this episode has
not defined my life. My life is characterized by many
health relationships today, but you have to understand
what sexual predators are like: ... they seek out the
vulnerable, the shy, those who have a very hard time
speaking up on their own behalf. And my father was a
passionate man; I look back and wonder, many times, if
he'd ever known about this, what he might have done -
he was a hunter, he had ready access to guns. It's
... not [a] far stretch of the imagination to think
that he might have killed the predator in our family,
and I would have had to then face not only a pregnancy
but possibly watching my father spend the rest of his
life in prison.
MS. CASON continued:
These are difficult ... conversations to have. I grew
up in a family that though they were loving, were not
comfortable with this topic of sexuality. I've tried
to remedy that in my own family life, and I talk very
openly about this. I ask the committee to please
consider that if you would like to intervene in family
conversations about human sexuality, that you do it
very early - please insist that families speak to
their children from a very young age [and] teach them
about their bodies, teach them that there is no shame
in this - and that if you're going to intervene,
intervene early with comprehensive sexuality
education, but don't wait until it's too late ...
[and] do further harm to these kinds of victims.
Thank you for listening.
3:30:08 PM
AMY LEE, after noting that she is an educator in Anchorage,
pointed out that a similar bill was passed but ruled
unconstitutional at the federal level, and questioned why it
should be any different now with regard to HB 35, which would
take away a teenager's rights to reproductive freedom. Even
though a teenager may be a minor, it is still her body and she
has the right to choose [whether or not to give birth]. In an
ideal world, all teenagers would openly discuss these issues
with their parent/guardians; however, there are situations
wherein this is impossible. If a pregnant teenager is
determined to have an abortion but can't obtain parental
consent, she will find an alternative method, which will most
likely result in an unsafe or deadly procedure performed by an
untrained individual, increasing the likelihood of complications
that could result in the teenager's death. In conclusion, she
said, "We all want all children to grow up and live in a safe
world and have a life that is protected; however, taking [away]
their right to make their own decisions will limit the chances
of safe options, and creating a safe and supportive environment
should be the first priority, so I'm clearly against ...
[HB 35]."
3:31:43 PM
KRYSTAL MEULENERS, after relaying that she is an educator in
Anchorage, said she would be testifying against HB 35. The
majority of teenagers in Alaska are talking with their parents
about their reproductive health and have their support when they
need it. Such teenagers are fortunate to have "these adult
voices" to guide them through tough times, she remarked, but
pointed out that there are a number of teenagers who are not as
blessed. House Bill 35 would mainly affect Alaskan teenagers
who do not have the parental support they need, and may cause
these teenagers to delay seeking care or force them into making
unsafe choices. States that have enacted similar parental
consent have seen an increase in late-term abortions.
MS. MEULENERS offered that in her experience mentoring at-risk
youth, she has felt comfortable referring teenagers to
reproductive health clinics, knowing that they will receive
thoughtful advice and care from professionals. It's extremely
important for teenagers in compromised situations to feel safe
and have access to adults and professionals whom they can trust.
She offered her understanding that a similar bill was found to
be unconstitutional in 2007 because of the limitations it placed
on young women to care for their own best interests. It's
within the rights of teenagers, she opined, for them to have
reproductive choice and access to reproductive healthcare.
3:33:30 PM
DIANNE HOLMES characterized HB 35 as really being about consent
by those who would be grandparents, and pointed out that once a
teenager gives birth, regardless of how old she is, then she -
and not the grandparents - is totally in control of and totally
responsible for the baby. If a teenager seeking judicial bypass
for an abortion must go before a judge and prove that she ought
to be allowed to have an abortion, then why doesn't a teenager
have to similarly prove to a judge that she is responsible
enough to care for a baby? Referring to the argument offered by
some that a pregnant teenager isn't mature enough to make
reproductive decisions, Ms. Holmes countered that once that same
teenager gives birth, she is then assumed to be mature enough to
make appropriate decisions regarding her baby.
MS. HOLMES also pointed out that teenage pregnancies are often
high-risk pregnancies because, physiologically, teenagers are
still growing. She characterized the argument made by some that
getting an abortion will have detrimental physical and
psychological ramifications as an overstatement, surmising that
any such psychological ramifications are perhaps more the result
of how others treat the teenager who's chosen to have an
abortion, and pointing out that carrying a pregnancy to term is
riskier, health-wise, than getting an abortion. She observed
that it's not possible to legislate good parenting - which, in
any case, should have occurred before the teenager got pregnant
- nor is it possible to legislate morality. Furthermore,
studies illustrates that a large population of the young adults
currently in prison were borne of young mothers.
MS. HOLMES, in conclusion, said: "If you really want to reduce
abortions - and, let's be truthful here, this is what it's all
about - then please fund proper education on reproduction
[because teaching] abstinence only doesn't work. How many times
do we have to have that proven to us?"
3:37:34 PM
BRITTANY GOODNIGHT, Public Affairs Manager, Planned Parenthood
of the Great Northwest (PPGNW), explained that it is with her
family and her community in mind that she is coming forward to
speak against HB 35. She said that her parents did a fabulous
job raising her; they gave her love and support, and made sure
she grew up in a trusting and respectful household where
communication was always possible, and, as a result, she
included them in all of her major life decisions such as
finishing high school and applying for college. She added that
she would have also included them in her decision-making process
had she become pregnant, not because the state would have
mandated her to do so, but because her parents fostered a sense
of trust, respect, and communication throughout her life. She
relayed that her parents are now outraged that the State of
Alaska is attempting to mandate good family communication and
would thereby be stepping into a private family situation. She
shared her hope that should one day her daughter not come to her
for whatever reason, that her daughter would still have access
to quality, safe medical care and be kept safe and healthy
during her decision-making process.
MS. GOODNIGHT, mentioning that while growing up she had numerous
people upon whom she could rely, opined that it was having just
such a network of caring adults that helped her become the
confident person she is today. Many Alaskan parents have
fostered healthy relationships and an atmosphere of
communication with their children. However, HB 35 appears to be
targeting a small number of teenagers who don't have healthy and
safe relationships within their families, and this is worrisome
to her, she relayed, because it is impractical to expect that
such teenagers will be able to take their case before a judge.
She predicted that only the most confident and savvy of
teenagers are likely to be capable of using the judicial bypass
procedure outlined in the bill; only those teenagers that have
had positive experiences with law enforcement and the judicial
system and therefore wouldn't be intimidated to go before a
judge will be able to do so, particularly given how difficult it
is even for adults to go before a stranger and speak publicly
about personal issues.
MS. GOODNIGHT referred to the timeline that would be required by
the judicial bypass procedure outlined in the bill, and surmised
that a pregnant teenager would have to go through a nine-step
process. A pregnant teenager would first have to obtain a
pregnancy test and documentation from a clinic; in an urban
setting, that could take only two days, but in a rural setting,
it could take three or more days. The pregnant teenager must
then "write a statement of circumstances" and retain a lawyer,
and this could take another two days. Once the court receives
that statement, the court has three business days to set up a
hearing. If the ability to access abortion services is not
granted during that hearing, then the pregnant teenager must
consult with her lawyer - taking up another day - and write and
submit an appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court- taking up another
two days. After receipt of that appeal, the court then has
three business days to file a brief, and another five business
days to hear oral arguments and make a decision.
MS. GOODNIGHT pointed out that this process would take 18 days
not including weekends or holidays, and if one assumes that a
pregnant teenagers is 10 weeks along by the time she decides not
to give birth, the judicial bypass procedure outlined in the
bill isn't timely, regardless that proponents of the bill feel
that that procedure is sufficient for those teenagers living in
tough situations who cannot obtain parental consent. Under that
procedure, such a teenager would effectively be prevented from
accessing a first-trimester abortion in Alaska. In conclusion,
she said, "We have to trust a young woman who chooses to
terminate her pregnancy, just as we also have to trust a young
woman who chooses to raise a child."
3:43:04 PM
GERAN TARR, Director, Alliance for Reproductive Justice (ARJ),
offered her understanding that although the sponsor of HB 35
says that the bill is really about families, every supporter of
the bill says it is about abortion. She opined, therefore, that
the real intent of the bill ought to be clarified. She then
pointed out that a lot of the terms that are being used are not
medically accurate, and opined that there is great danger in
using terms that people come up with on their own, adding that
she teaches anatomy and physiology at the university and
stresses to her students the importance of using medically
accurate terminology.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MS. TARR noted that an earlier testifier referred to various
statistics but neglected to cite the source of those statistics,
and warned of the danger of using statistics that are not "from
a peer-reviewed journal" because they are then suspect at best.
She then disclosed that the ARJ would financially benefit from
the passage of HB 35, but relayed that her comments would be in
opposition to bill. She offered her understanding that the
[Planned Parenthood of Alaska case] resulted in about $1 million
in legal fees being paid out by the State to various
organizations, adding that the ARJ would have an interest in
participating in any future lawsuit that resulted from passage
of HB 35 because the ARJ would stand to benefit financially from
doing so.
MS. TARR, noting that many have pointed out that other medical
procedures require parental consent, surmised that that consent
is required for purposes of establishing who will pay for the
procedure. She mentioned, too, that there are women and
teenagers who are choosing to have an abortion because they
cannot afford [to give birth], and opined that no woman or girl
in Alaska should feel forced into having an abortion simply
because it's her only economic option. She expressed dismay
that some committee members and those in support of the bill are
discounting the stories of abuse and the fear of abuse, and
characterized that discounting as inappropriate - a lack of
recognition of the pain and suffering endured by the girls being
abused.
MS. TARR asked: "Has it been so long that we've truly forgotten
Papa Pilgrim?" and "Have we really forgotten the pain and
suffering endured by those teenage girls while they lived in
that house of terror?" She responded, "I will not forget, and I
will not stand by while others forget." This conversation, she
opined, should have started out by discussing what is best for
pregnant teenagers, and if that had been the starting place, she
surmised, the bill would be far different than it is now,
because it is those teenagers who are experiencing a time of
crises who truly need everyone's support. On the issue of
constitutionality and the State's compelling interest, she
proffered that in this case, the State has a compelling interest
in ending the cycle of abuse once and for all - for far too long
has Alaska topped the charts with regard to the rates of sexual
abuse of children, sexual assault, child abuse, and domestic
violence. For [those in authority] to know that these things
are occurring, without doing everything in their power to stop
it, is distressing; there can be no greater purpose than to
protect the children of the state.
MS. TARR predicted that the committee wouldn't be hearing any
testimony from those parents who abuse their children; none of
those parents are going to come before the committee and admit,
"I was an alcoholic parent, I beat my daughter, I know that my
boyfriend raped her, and I didn't do anything about it." Those
are the parents being discussed with regard to the judicial
bypass procedure outlined in the bill. In conclusion, she
encouraged those members who had to leave the meeting early to
listen to a recording of the meeting and take into account the
personal stories of those who have been affected by child abuse
and sexual abuse, so as to be able to start thinking of their
needs first.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
3:48:54 PM
STEPHANIE TAYLOR, after noting that she has five children, two
of them teenage girls, said that she is in support of HB 35.
She offered her belief that neither the passage of HB 35 nor the
lack of its passage will change anything for victims of abuse or
provide them with more protections, and that at issue instead is
the question of what abortion does. Teenagers, she pointed out,
are not always mature enough to think about the future; when
they are making choices, they think only of the present without
considering where the decisions they're making now will lead
them in the future. Furthermore, a teenager is unlikely to have
sufficient knowledge about her own and/or her family's medical
history; for example, without parental involvement, a teenager
making medical decisions might not know about her family's
propensity for having adverse reactions to certain medical
drugs.
MS. TAYLOR pointed out, too, that regardless of how good a job
parents might do in instilling their children with certain
values, teenagers still do things they know their parents don't
want them to do, and this can make it difficult for teenagers to
then tell their parents that they've done something wrong anyway
even while knowing it was wrong. Not passing HB 35 would make
it okay for a teenager to usurp her parents' authority and make
these kinds of choices and medical decisions on her own; not
passing the bill would make it easier for a teenager who has
made a bad choice to keep her parents out of the loop simply
because she doesn't want to face her parents with that fact.
Again, the fact that teenagers, even ones who normally make good
choices, could make a bad decision and find themselves pregnant
speaks to the fact that teenagers don't always think in the long
term.
MS. TAYLOR relayed that as a parent, she tries to talk with her
children about all of these issues, but there is no guarantee
that they will always do the right thing, no guarantee that they
won't do something and thereby create problems for themselves.
Parents are responsible for their children, and if complications
arise from an abortion, the parents are the ones who are going
to be responsible for providing care and seeing their children
through those difficulties, and so to leave parents out of "this
part of the process" is just not right. In conclusion, she
encouraged the committee to pass HB 35 and support parents'
rights.
3:53:24 PM
SARAH CASE relayed that she is in favor HB 35. She explained
that she became pregnant with her first child when she was 17
and a junior in high school. Although it was difficult for her
to tell her parents, she relayed, her parents helped her make
her decisions regarding what her future would be, made sure that
she continued her education, and provided assistance [raising
the baby]. Given that she has to sign parental consent forms
for her daughter to get a shot, she said, she has difficulty
with the concept that her daughter could get surgery that might
endanger her life and ability to have children herself in the
future without parental consent or even notification. All
medical procedures have a risk of complications, and require
follow-up care. Teenage pregnancy is an incredibly traumatic
event, and every pregnant minor needs long-term care regardless
of the path she chooses. She offered her belief that allowing
girls who've been abused to obtain an abortion will only result
in their continuing to be abused, because the abuse will be
covered up, and that's not going to help anyone. It is the
majority of parents, those who know how to take care of their
children, who need to know about their children's medical
procedures in order to take care of them.
3:56:04 PM
JESSICA LARSON said she supports HB 35, and is really concerned
about the State driving wedges between parents and children.
There are lots of good, attentive parents who are trying to have
relationships with their teenagers, she remarked, and
characterized HB 35 as important because it will permit those
parents to play a role in some of the hardest decisions their
children may have to make. She indicated that she strongly
supports parental notification and, to a lesser degree, parental
consent. She also relayed that she is concerned about
situations in which older men are impregnating minors and then
attempting to destroy the evidence of their sexually abusive
behavior by bringing those minors to abortion clinics.
MS. LARSON opined that in no way should a concerned parent be
deprived of knowing about such a situation involving their
child, or lose the ability to press charges for statutory rape;
furthermore, the courts should be involved in situations
involving sexual abuse of a minor. Regardless that only a few
ideal families exist, if striving for that ideal is abandoned or
the destruction of that ideal is allowed to occur, then what is
society left with? Don't desert parents who are working towards
having the best family relationships they can, she remarked,
opining that to do so would be a travesty. Regardless that
HB 35 may be litigated, she offered, her belief is that it will
stand. In conclusion, she pointed out that people are
accountable [for the ensuing results] if they allow the
disintegration of the family.
3:58:33 PM
ANN GRAY said that she, the mother of four children who aren't
old enough to speak for themselves, supports HB 35, which she
characterized as dealing with parental consent - not abuse or
abortion. She relayed that she became pregnant at the age of
14, and is thankful for the guidance she received from her
parents as she made the important decisions she was then forced
to make because of her pregnancy. Now, at the age of 24, she
said she can't imagine having her daughter, once she becomes a
teenager, have to face the situation of being pregnant without
parental support and instead only receive counseling from a
medical professional - it's a horrifying thought to any loving
parent, particularly given that it's the parent who must deal
with the consequences of a pregnant minor's decision. Looking
back, she admitted, she wouldn't have been able to comprehend
the long-term consequences of her decision had she had to make
it on her own. In conclusion, she acknowledged the difficulties
faced by a minor who finds herself in the same position she was
in, and the fact that there are extreme cases in which a
pregnant minor can't rely on her parents; nonetheless, it is her
understanding that laws are meant to protect the majority of
Alaska citizens - children and parents like herself.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
4:00:52 PM
MARGARET BROWN, after relaying that she is a mother and an
educator, said that she is in favor of HB 35 and encourages
support of bill. She said that she agrees with comments that
pregnant minors must not be separated from their parents at a
critical-decision juncture in their life. As a society, people
want and need parents to guide their children through decisions
of all sorts, but parents must especially have the ability to do
so during their children's most desperate times. To place the
State between the parent and the child at the point of a
critical decision such as ending a pregnancy is bad [case] law
and needs to be reversed, because it puts the State in the role
of the parent - encouraging a contemptuous relationship of
deceit and manipulation. Removing parental consent for a major
medical procedure does not support family strength and bonding;
it does just the opposite. She opined that 13- to 17-year-old
teenagers are not ready to make adult decisions, surmising that
that is why they aren't considered to be adults until they reach
the age of 18. Current [case] law, however, gives such
teenagers the ability to decide to take the life of a developing
fetus without the advice of those who support them.
MS. BROWN indicated her belief that having the option of the
judicial bypass procedure will be sufficient for those teenagers
who do not have the loving support of their parents. Regardless
that that procedure may be difficult to undertake, that is not
the primary concern of HB 35, though it should be the intent of
the State to make that procedure available and timely for those
who need it the most. In conclusion, she shared her hope that
the committee will support the bill.
4:02:46 PM
STEPHANIE SCHURTER - after mentioning that she has worked as a
[maternity] nurse and in a pediatric clinic, and that she has
two children - relayed that she would be speaking in support of
HB 35. She characterized parental consent for an abortion as
vital to protecting the foundation of what society is built on -
the family - and offered her belief that HB 35 will protect
minors because it will aid parents, who are responsible for
their children, to fulfill their parental roles. Parents are
the first and foremost resource minors have when making serious
decisions, especially decisions about their bodies, beliefs, and
futures. To take away parents' right to provide that assistance
will tear at the social fabric of the state. Noting that
parental consent is required in numerous other situations, she
remarked that it is completely inconsistent to apply the Alaska
State Constitution's privacy clause to minors solely in the case
of abortion, and makes no sense to her. She shared her belief
that abortion is not a medically necessary procedure.
MS. SCHURTER opined that there are also important psychological
and spiritual aspects and repercussions that a pregnant teenager
[with the assistance of a responsible adult] needs to consider,
without making any rash decisions. Acknowledging that there
will be situations in which pregnant teenagers are being abused
or can't rely on their parents, she opined that in the majority
of situations, teenagers must discuss their pregnancy with their
parents. In conclusion, she said she greatly fears giving
medical institutions the right to perform procedures on children
without parental consent, and again relayed that she supports
HB 35.
4:05:42 PM
ROBERTA N. HUNTER relayed that she would be speaking in support
of HB 35, and offered the following:
The supreme court decision that overturned our
original PCA was based on the right of Alaskan
children to autonomy specifically in [regard] ... to
whether or not the children wanted to have a child or
not. I am here to speak on behalf of the subject of
autonomy for pregnant minors who are forced by their
parents to get abortions. I've studied abortion and
related issues, and have spoken with pre- and post-
abortive women and young ladies for many years. I can
assure each of the legislators that there are minors
in the state of Alaska who have been and are forced
and coerced into having abortions by their parents
against their wishes and wills.
Since the ... [Alaska] Supreme Court has ruled that
the Alaska [State] Constitution protects Alaskan
minors' rights to autonomy in [regard] ... to having a
child or not, this same right must, in all fairness,
be applied to minors who want to keep their babies and
raise them. Currently, the lack of a parental consent
law in our state leaves young ladies wishing to carry
their pregnancies to term, and raise their own
children, unprotected.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MS. HUNTER then [paraphrased] from some log entries
[purportedly] written by pregnant teenagers on an Internet web
site titled "Teen Abortion Issues" about being forced to have an
abortion. She offered her understanding that such stories are
common, and that those teenagers were forced by their own
parents to have abortions and as a result are suffering serious
trauma during their developing years. She argued that such
teenagers must be protected from their parents - those teenagers
have to be allowed to retain their options if true autonomy is
to be the rule of law in Alaska. She said she supports HB 35
because it will protect the autonomy of minors who seek to
continue their pregnancies and keep their babies, and opined
that the bill contains enough provisions to ensure that all
minors are protected with regard to their own bodies. House
Bill 35, she asserted, would promote parental rights and
responsibilities for all parents, including those pregnant
minors wishing and choosing to become mothers themselves, would
strengthen Alaska families, and would protect the autonomy of
every pregnant minor in Alaska. Current law, she opined, fails
to protect pregnant minors seeking to exercise their right to
decide whether to become mothers.
4:09:41 PM
CARISSA PHILLIPS offered her belief that it is parents' god-
given responsibility, right, and privilege to raise, govern, and
protect their own children. There is something very wrong and
destructive, she opined, with the fact that Alaska [law]
currently allows a pregnant minor to have an abortion - which
she characterized as an invasive medical procedure - or obtain
abortifacient medication, that could potentially have
devastating results mentally, physically, emotionally, and
spiritually, without her parents' knowledge or consent. She,
too, noted that parental consent is currently required in
numerous other situations, and characterized the lack of such a
requirement with regard to abortion as inconsistent and
absolutely ridiculous.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MS. PHILLIPS observed that under current [case] law, in addition
to the possible loss, grief, and lack of trust in their
relationship with their child, parents are still responsible for
providing care for their daughter after an abortion, including
providing counseling or medical help if needed as a result of
the abortion; furthermore, as a dependent, a minor relies on her
parents for post-abortion care addressing the possible risks of
abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding,
infection, internal organ damage, heavy bleeding, incomplete
abortion, reaction to anesthesia, damage to the cervix, scaring
of the uterine lining, perforation of the uterus, breast cancer,
preterm delivery, placenta previa, suicide, substance abuse, and
death. She mentioned that she acquired the aforementioned
information about the risks of abortion from the Crisis
Pregnancy Center (CPC).
MS. PHILLIPS asked that parents be allowed to oversee "these
types of medical decisions," adding her belief that current
[Alaska case] law reaps destruction upon families and robs
parents of their parental rights. "How are we to protect and
guide our children if the State is working against us?" she
queried. Passage of HB 35, she posited, will protect parental
rights and strengthen families by allowing the doors of
communication to be opened between children and their parents,
by preventing the coercion of minors to have an abortion, and by
allowing parents to oversee their children's health decisions
and give guidance, support, and encouragement. In conclusion,
she mentioned that she has three children, stated that she is in
favor of parental rights, and urged the committee to "give back
to us our fundamental rights as parents and witness [the]
strengthening of Alaska's families."
4:12:17 PM
PAULINE LAFOREST, after relaying that she has four children,
pointed out that whenever she takes her children to the hospital
at Elmendorf Air Force Base, the doctors there recognize and
respect her right as a parent to consent to or refuse their
recommendations regarding medical procedures for her children.
If this federally-run military base recognizes her parental
rights regarding her children's medical procedures, then why
doesn't the State of Alaska?. She offered her understanding
that at the heart of HB 35 is the issue of parental consent, and
characterized that as a right parents have when raising their
children. She said she takes her parental responsibility
seriously and works hard to fulfill it. On the issue of
responsibility, she pointed out that when a 13-year-old, for
example, gives birth, although she then has a responsibility to
her child, it doesn't make her a responsible person. In
conclusion, she asked the committee to support HB 35.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
4:15:27 PM
DEBBIE JOSLIN, President, Eagle Forum Alaska, said she is in
support of the passage of HB 35, adding her belief that the
family, which she characterized as the fundamental building
block of society, is in trouble in a variety of ways. House
Bill 35 would not force parents and children to communicate with
each other, she remarked, but as the law currently stands, there
is a wall between parents and children that stops the
communication that should be there. She said that although she
herself was raised in a dysfunctional home, she believes that
the vast majority of parents want what's best for their
children.
MS. JOSLIN relayed that she had an abortion when she was 18 and
was assumed to be fairly mature because she'd become emancipated
at the age of 17; she didn't have parents that she could go to,
and instead relied on the advice of the man who got her
pregnant. Had she been a minor in a state with a law such as
HB 35 in place, she acknowledged, she would have had to go
through a judicial bypass procedure, but surmised that
regardless of how scary that process might have been, it would
have been well worth it to get input from an unbiased judge who
might have pointed out to her that she had other options besides
just getting an abortion, options she didn't get to hear about
from the man who got her pregnant or from Planned Parenthood.
MS. JOSLIN opined that what should be considered is that what's
really best for teenagers is for them to have input from their
parents, or, lacking that, input from the courts. In addition,
if a pregnant teenager is living in an abusive situation, she
proffered, then the teenager could simply get input from a
school counselor, for example. All of Alaska's laws should be
passed based on what's best for the whole [of society], and for
the majority of teenagers, she opined, the best thing would be
to have a parental consent law in place. In conclusion, she
asked the committee to pass HB 35 quickly.
4:19:28 PM
DAVID BRONSON, Alaska Family Council, after explaining that the
Alaska Family Council is a pro-family organization whose goal is
to protect and defend Alaska families, said he disagrees with
the earlier comments that referred to pregnant minors as women;
instead, he opined, HB 35 pertains to children, and will
solidify parents' access to their children. Although the bill
won't address all situations, it will do a good job of assisting
parents and will create an opportunity for the State to help
parents during what could be one of the most difficult times in
theirs and their child's life. In conclusion, he said the
Alaska Family Council appreciates HB 35.
4:22:05 PM
CATHY COTTON, after noting that she is in favor of HB 35, opined
that parents have a fundamental right to know whether their
minor child is seeking an abortion, and the right to be involved
in any and all medical decisions pertaining to their children.
She indicated that HB 35 "makes perfect common sense" to her,
and shared her hope that members will vote "Yes" on HB 35.
4:22:59 PM
PAMELA SAMASH said she supports of HB 35 because of the right of
parents to make decisions for their children. She asked [the
legislature] to protect parental rights and teenagers' lives,
and offered her understanding that the bill will protect abused
teenagers and could break the cycle of destructive, abusive
patterns via intervention. She relayed that a friend of hers
was raped repeatedly by her friend's father; surmised that a
bill such as HB 35 would have made a difference by forcing a
legal intervention, stopping the abuse; and asserted that her
friend is also in support of the bill. She opined that to not
pass HB 35 would be more destructive to teenagers because they
could get hurt during the abortion procedure; parents need to be
involved in such a situation in order to be able to take care of
their daughter. In conclusion, she asked the committee to
please pass HB 35.
4:27:00 PM
MICHAEL REMILLARD - after mentioning that he agrees with those
[who have spoken in favor of HB 35], and that he, too, is in
favor of HB 35 - said he thinks it will help protect the
fundamental rights of parents to be involved in the medical
decisions of their minor children. With regard to the notion
that children are experts in their own lives, he pointed out
that teenagers have always believed they are experts on a great
many subjects only to realize later on in life that they aren't;
society recognizes that, and parents recognize that, and that's
why there are age limits with regard to driving, drinking, and
voting, for example.
MR. REMILLARD shared his belief that HB 35 is very important,
and that the vast majority of families fall somewhere in between
being so perfect that they don't need the bill and being so
dysfunctional that the bill won't help them - somewhere in the
middle wherein it's a combination of factors and influences that
result in a teenager choosing one path over another; in these
situations it is important for teenagers to go back to their
parents and receive guidance. Furthermore, the bill does
provide for judicial bypass, and so regardless of how scary the
judicial system and the social services network are to deal
with, people [in this country] are fortunate to have them, and
when a teenager has to interact with the judicial system, it's a
good thing regardless that it can be intimidating. In
conclusion, he said he supports HB 35.
4:30:11 PM
RICK SIKMA relayed that he is in favor of HB 35, and offered his
belief that parents have been making good decisions on behalf of
their children for centuries, and that it has been understood by
society that parents are the ones who are supposed to take care
of and make decisions for their children. The court system and
the legal system, over the last several years, have been
deciding that the courts and the government should take control
of children, and this has resulted in more and more crime and
problems in the community, he opined, and shared his belief that
parents should have the right to make decisions for their child
- especially a serious decision like whether the child should
have an abortion. He offered his understanding that when his
daughter-in-law had an abortion when she was 13, Planned
Parenthood never asked her whether she wanted an abortion and
didn't notify her parents; that she now wishes that her parents
had been involved; and that she is now experiencing health and
emotional problems because of that abortion. In conclusion, he
offered his hope that all members will vote to pass HB 35 from
committee.
4:33:04 PM
KAT DAVIS offered her belief that HB 35 should be passed in
order to protect young women and parental rights. Parents are
liable for the actions of their child, she observed, and pointed
out that a minor is unable to get a tattoo and can only get a
piercing with parental consent, and that if a minor changes her
mind after getting a piercing, the stud can be removed, whereas
an abortion is more complex in that it can affect that girl's
ability to carry a baby to term later on and might increase the
risk of various cancers. Getting an abortion, she surmised, is
psychologically and emotionally traumatic for a lot of women.
During the developmental stage, a teenager might be inclined to
be independent but she is not always fully prepared to handle
that independence, and thus when facing a decision that could
potentially affect her body for the rest of her life, having the
input of her parent or guardians is vital.
MS. DAVIS offered her belief HB 35 would reduce the likelihood
of a child being victimized without parental knowledge. A
teenager can be pressured into having sex and then be pressured
into having an abortion without the responsible adults in her
life ever knowing about it. Given the liability issues that
parents face these days, the decision to have an abortion should
not be made without a parent's knowledge. She asked the
committee to please pass HB 35 and protect the rights of
parents. She explained that she was molested as a child and
then raped as a teenager, and thus understands the chaos
associated with such trauma, and relayed that although telling
her mother what had happened was probably one of the hardest
conversations she's ever had, it was also a great relief to then
have her mother's support and advice.
MS. DAVIS, noting that she is a registered nurse and that other
medical professionals have been testifying against HB 35, said
she is concerned that without parental guidance, medical
professionals, being in a position of authority, could guide a
teenager into having an abortion without concern for her
family's values, and this may not bode well in the long term for
the family's cohesion and communication.
4:36:28 PM
LEE CAGE, after mentioning that he is a licensed clinical social
worker and the father of six children, stated that he is
strongly in support of HB 35 and has learned much from people's
testimony.
4:37:44 PM
D. A. McGILVARY relayed that she has seven children and [will
soon have] fifteen grandchildren, and indicated that after
reading HB 35 in its entirety, she believes that it will protect
a pregnant minor who is frightened of telling her parents that
she has decided to get an abortion. All protections under all
circumstances are seemingly in place, she opined. Given that
parental consent is required for vaccinations or the
administering of aspirin, so much more so does a child need her
parents' consent and support in situations involving [abortion];
the psychological impact must be horrendous, she surmised, when
a woman "kills her unborn child" and then tries to keep it a
secret. She asked the committee to please pass HB 35 in order
to give parents back their right to be parents to their minor
children. She offered her belief that some statutory rape
crimes are going undetected due to "private and secret
abortions." In conclusion, she said, "These children are gifts
of god, from whatever source, and we just can't be snuffing them
out, and, good gracious, if they're going to do that, their
parents need to know and assist in the before, during, and
after."
4:41:32 PM
SETH CHURCH relayed that he's been involved in the juvenile
justice system (JJS) for some years, and offered his
understanding that the reason the nation's JJS doesn't use
typical [adult] correctional facilities is because kids are not
fully developed mentally until the age of 18, and is also why
the federal government created the [Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974]. This developmental factor
is critical when considering the issue of a minor receiving an
abortion, he opined, particularly given that a minor is not
considered to be fully capable of making decision in situations
involving tobacco, alcohol, and military service, for example.
He indicated that he is in favor of HB 35 because it makes good
sense and places the authority to make a decision [about a
minor's abortion] back in the hands of the parents. In
conclusion, Mr. Church offered the following quote by Thomas
Paine, "A generous parent would have said, 'If there must be
trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.'"
4:44:04 PM
KIM BODIKER relayed that when her mother was pregnant with her -
the last of five children - her mother's doctor encouraged her
to have an abortion because there was a 50-50 chance that the
baby would be "brain dead" at birth, but she refused, and once
she did give birth, that doctor then saw the error of his
advice. A pregnant 15-year-old receiving such advice from a
doctor, however, might simply acquiesce to having an unnecessary
abortion. A doctor may not know all of the circumstances in a
pregnant teenager's life, but her parents would. It is
important for parents to realize their responsibilities to their
children by having their children come to them to discuss
matters such as abortion, for example.
MS. BODIKER offered her belief that even though some teenagers
do live in very abusive situations, there are options other than
abortion for such teenagers to pursue. Her parents were very
involved in every major decision in her life, and her life would
be for the worse, she surmised, if they hadn't been so involved.
Parents have the experience and the knowledge to consider
consequences that a teenager may not be able to envision, and
this is a protection teenagers need; parents, for example, would
have knowledge of their child's medical conditions, and could
institute protections against a predator, and adoption of HB 35
would help ensure that such information comes to light and would
[encourage] better parent-child relationships. In conclusion,
she asked members to vote "Yes" on HB 35.
4:47:54 PM
CAROL SZOPA said she is for passage of HB 35, and that she
agrees with the prior speakers [in favor of the bill]. Alaska's
adults need to protect their children, she opined, and offered
her understanding that under current [case] law, any adult can
influence a pregnant minor into having an abortion without her
own parents ever knowing; for example, the parents of the boy
who got a girl pregnant could take the girl in for an abortion
and thus save themselves and their son from having to pay child
support. Currently nothing protects a pregnant minor from
making a decision not in her own best interest. Children need
their parents to help them because their young brains are not
fully developed. She relayed that her daughter became pregnant
at the age of 17 and later shared with her that it would have
been horrible had she not been able to get advice from her
mother. House Bill 35, she opined, is about parental rights,
parental consent, and the rights of a child to be able to rely
on her parents, not her boyfriend or his parents or a school
counselor or other some other adult who doesn't know that child
like her parent do. In conclusion, she expressed her hope that
HB 35 will get passed [from committee].
4:50:10 PM
JANET CREPPS, Deputy Director, U.S. Legal Program, Center for
Reproductive Rights, relayed that she would be testifying in
opposition to HB 35, and mentioned that she has been a member of
the Alaska Bar Association (ABA) since 1983, has represented
abortion providers in Alaska for more than a decade, and was
lead counsel [for the appellees in State v. Planned Parenthood
of Alaska]. She opined that HB 35 is clearly unconstitutional
under the Alaska Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood
of Alaska. In that case, the court struck down the existing
[parental] consent requirement because it gave parents an
impermissible veto over a minor's decision to have an abortion;
determined that the State could accomplish its goals through the
less-restrictive means of [requiring parental notification]; and
clarified that [the then-existing] parental consent requirement
went too far. This decision is a binding precedent that the
legislature should recognize and apply when considering HB 35.
Ms. Crepps added:
And I'd like to address one particular aspect of the
opinion in response to something that Representative
Coghill said when he was presenting the bill.
[Representative] ... Coghill mentioned that the court
described the previous parental consent law as
constitutionally suspect. That statement came when
the court was considering whether or not the consent
requirement was the least restrictive means of
accomplishing the State's goal. The point the court
was making was that on its face, the law [was] suspect
because it required consent instead of notice. After
a thorough examination of the law and the State's
asserted justifications for it, the court concluded
that its suspicions were confirmed and the law was, in
fact, unconstitutional.
MS. CREPPS offered her belief that the consent provision is not
the only serious problem with HB 35 but that there are in fact
other provisions that also make it unconstitutional. For
example, the bill imposes a mandatory 48-hour delay following
notice about the abortion to a parent. While other notice laws
in the U.S. allow a parent to waive the delay by giving consent
to the abortion, under HB 35, a parent who is ready to consent
cannot waive the waiting period even if the parent believes that
it is in the minor's best interest to proceed without delay.
There is no legitimate justification, she opined, for the
legislature to require a delay against the wishes of the parent.
Furthermore, she also opined, the definition of "medical
emergency" [as used in proposed AS 18.16.010(g)] is
unconstitutionally vague; no other such law containing an
exception for a medical emergency uses the words "medical
instability" - this is not a medical term nor will it provide
physicians with enough guidance to meet constitutional
standards. In conclusion, she asserted that HB 35 is
unconstitutional on numerous grounds, and urged the committee to
reject the bill.
MS. CREPPS, in response to comments, opined that HB 35 is not
only unconstitutional, for the reasons found by the Alaska
Supreme Court when it considered the previous law, but is worse;
it is more burdensome - it combines notice and consent - and is
therefore more unconstitutional than the previous law. In
response to a question, she reiterated that the term, "medical
instability" is not a medical term, and observed that neither is
it further defined in statute. The constitutional standards for
due process, she pointed out, require that all laws, especially
those imposing criminal penalties or severe civil penalties,
have to be clear enough to provide those who must comply with
the law and those who must enforce the law with enough
information to do so and to do so fairly. The term "medical
instability" isn't anything that a physician would recognize or
be able to conform to in order to avoid either jeopardizing the
health of the minor or facing severe penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL disagreed.
4:57:15 PM
HEATHER CHURCH, after relaying that she is a nursing student and
plans to get licensed in Alaska, mentioned that according to the
teaching she is receiving, the patient is to be considered by
community nurses as [part of] the family, and that she and her
fellow nursing students have been working with teen parents. As
nursing students, she explained, "we see that ... teen parents'
families are very involved." In conclusion, she said she is in
support of the bill, and asked members to please vote "Yes" on
HB 35.
4:58:33 PM
HEIDI DOUDNA, after mentioning that she is the mother of seven,
said she is very supportive of HB 35, and agrees with the
concept that parents have the right to be involved in all
medical decisions that involve their minor children. She
expressed her trust that legislators will rectify any problems
with the current wording of the bill in order to ensure that
parents will have the right to decide what is best for their own
children's psychological and physical long-term health. In
conclusion, she asked members to please vote "Yes" on HB 35.
4:59:38 PM
ANNIE DOUGHERTY, after mentioning that others have expressed
many of her points, said she is in support of HB 35. She
offered her belief that the primary reason a minor would attempt
to have an abortion without parental knowledge or consent is
because she is scared - being a child and pregnant is scary, as
is deciding to have an abortion. However, hiding the problem
from her parents will only ensure that the minor remains in fear
even after she has the abortion because it will then be just so
much harder for her to approach her parents for help and
comfort. She noted that even though she is a loving mother, her
own children are fearful about having to admit to her that
they've been doing something they shouldn't; it's natural for
children to feel fear, but it's important to teach children the
importance of admitting that they have a problem in order to get
the appropriate help.
MS. DOUGHERTY offered her belief that the majority of parents
love their children and want what's best for them. And although
there are some children who aren't blessed with a loving family
and may thus rightly fear the consequences of disclosing their
[pregnancy and desire to have an abortion] to their parents,
HB 35, she opined, provides protections for such children.
[Passage of HB 35], she proffered, will result in children
taking responsibility for their mistakes - and a child who has
gotten pregnant has made a mistake; children shouldn't deal with
mistakes just by trying to cover them up. She cautioned against
not passing HB 35 simply out of fear that some parents will hurt
their children or force them into doing something [they don't
want to]. It's the parents' responsibility and right to parent
their children and work together with their children to solve
their children's problems. In conclusion, she asked the
committee to please pass HB 35.
5:04:25 PM
GERR C. KEFFER said that he and his wife have raised three
children and are now grandparents, and believe in the right and
responsibility of parents to take care of their own children; in
the government's responsibility to ensure protection for
families; and in less government.
5:05:12 PM
DICK STOFFEL said he is in favor of HB 35, hopes [the
legislature] will pass it, and offered his belief that it is
very constitutional for parents to have the right to consent "in
this matter."
5:05:45 PM
TIFFANY ROGERS-BORGES said she would be testifying in support of
HB 35, offering her belief that it will maintain the integrity
of families in a difficult situation. She characterized the
names of entities such as Planned Parenthood and the Center for
Reproductive Justice as euphemisms for abortionists seeking to
practice on young, lonely teenagers. Abortion won't solve the
problem of abuse or rape, and so the focus should instead be on
what has the highest value, and keeping something hidden doesn't
qualify nor does tearing parents away from their children; what
has the highest value, she opined, is the preservation of life,
consent, and notice. Autonomy regarding military service,
driving a car, or undergoing other medical procedures is not
being given to children, and so neither should it be given to a
minor seeking an abortion - parents should be united on this
issue. In conclusion, she said she disagrees with [studies
illustrating] that a large population of the young adults
currently in prison were borne of young mothers, and with the
concept that an entire segment of the population should be
eliminated simply for the sake of convenience.
5:07:49 PM
MARLENE MEYER said she is in strong favor of HB 35, and offered
her belief that HB 35 will help victims of abuse by encouraging
those who are seeking an abortion to disclose their abuse and
thus receive help from the court system. House Bill 35, she
opined, will also protect the rights of supportive parents in
Alaska. In conclusion, she expressed her hope that the
committee will pass HB 35.
5:09:05 PM
JACKIE GENGLER, mentioning that she is the mother of five,
offered her belief that in addition to protecting a pregnant
minor, HB 35 would also protect the unborn child as well, noting
that her children now play with the child of the woman whose
mother was advised to abort her. "This" is a very serious
matter, she said in conclusion, and urged support of HB 35.
5:10:25 PM
DEVON SCHRODER relayed that she would be speaking in opposition
to HB 35, and mentioned that she has two daughters. She
indicated her belief that a person shouldn't start being a good
parent and providing for a safe and secure relationship with
his/her child only after the child becomes pregnant. Such a
relationship should instead start long before anything like a
teenage pregnancy ever comes up; "preventative maintenance is
the key for me," she added, noting that she is already speaking
with her 8-year-old daughter, at an age-appropriate level, about
physical interactions with others. That discussion, she pointed
out, will need to continue as time goes on so that a comfortable
and open relationship is fostered, perhaps thereby reducing the
likelihood of a teenage pregnancy occurring in the first place.
She said she doubts that many teenagers who have open
communication with their parents engage the services of an
abortion provider without their parents. The bill would not
encourage children to sneak around behind their parents' backs,
she surmised, and suggested that what's needed is to foster good
parenting to begin with. Her parents, she noted, spoke with her
at an early age about all of her options and explained the facts
of life. Fostering communication the entire time is an
important part of raising children, she said in conclusion.
5:12:20 PM
SUSAN REEVES, after mentioning that she is the mother of three
young children, said she doesn't think that having an abortion
is done out of fear of one's parents, and that she hopes that
she has a good relationship with her children so that they will
feel comfortable coming to her. However, she remarked, she also
hopes that if her children find themselves in a situation that
doesn't give them the opportunity to ask her for her support or
advice, that they would have the intelligence to do what they
felt was right and have a way and the means to do it in a safe
manner. Passage of HB 35, she surmised, would tie the hands of
those providing good, safe, quality care at [organizations such
as] Planned Parenthood. She opined that children who are raised
to be strong and independent will be able to think for
themselves and be able to make their own decisions - not based
on fear - and thereby take care of difficult situations in an
appropriate manner, but not if their ability to do so is removed
[via the passage of HB 35], which will just create a mess and
nightmare for the public to deal with.
5:13:57 PM
BELISHA JEFFRIES said she is opposed to HB 35, and mentioned
that she grew up during a time when abortions were viewed as bad
things, and that she knows some of her daughter's friends who've
become pregnant have been afraid to tell their parents. When
children are raised by parents who take the time to explain
things to them, a lot of those children make very good decisions
and feel that they know what is right for them. Ms. Jefferies
said she would like to know what's going on with her daughter -
if her daughter were to be underage and decided to have an
abortion - but she wouldn't want to stop her daughter because,
in the end, it will be her daughter who will have to raise the
child.
5:15:28 PM
ORVILLE SMITH said he is against HB 35 for various reasons,
adding that everything he was going to say has already been said
by prior testifiers.
5:15:55 PM
STEVE BRADLEY said he is against HB 35, adding that everything
he was going to say has already been said by prior testifiers.
5:16:19 PM
KAREN MARTIN relayed that she has four living children, has had
one miscarriage, and was encouraged to abort her last child
because of her age but declined to do so. She shared her belief
that every child, at the moment of conception, has the
"inalienable right ... [to] life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness," and questioned how different the world would be had
various historical and present-day figures been aborted. In
conclusion, she encouraged members to watch the video of an
abortion that's available on the Internet.
5:18:26 PM
ROBIN SMITH said she opposes HB 35. She characterized the
assertion by some that children can't ever access medical
treatment without parental consent as inaccurate, and pointed
out that no state explicitly requires parental consent for
contraceptives, [pregnancy] tests, testing and treatment of
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), counseling, medical care
for drug and alcohol abuse, outpatient mental health services, a
cesarean section, prenatal care, or the delivery of a baby.
Furthermore, once a minor has a baby, she has parental rights
over that baby regardless of her age. And although the concept
of parents and children interacting in a situation involving a
teenage pregnancy sounds good, attempting to mandate such
behavior via the passage of HB 35 is akin to passing a law
mandating that all families shall be loving and supportive and
all children shall talk to their parents if they get into
trouble; the bottom line is that [passing such laws] doesn't
work.
MS. SMITH offered her understanding that the governor's daughter
- Bristol Palin - has said that unintended pregnancy is the
problem and that abstinence-only education in the schools
doesn't work. What's really needed to help prevent abortions,
Ms. Smith surmised, is to provide comprehensive, medically-
accurate, sex education in the schools, thus lowering the
possibility of teenage pregnancy to begin with. In addition, if
parents want their children to talk to them about their troubles
in an atmosphere of mutual respect, then parents must start
interacting with their children in that manner at a very early
age, and so perhaps providing parenting classes would also be a
good idea. Unfortunately, Alaska has high rates of alcohol
abuse and domestic violence, and the highest rate of child
sexual abuse in the country; given these facts, HB 35 is just
not a good law to impose, particularly given the distance some
teenagers will have to travel in order to use the judicial
bypass procedure outlined in the bill.
MS. SMITH, in conclusion, said she opposes HB 35 because
teenagers already have access to quite a bit of medical care
without parental consent, and because it will endanger teenagers
who may try to induce an abortion themselves [so as not to have
to get consent from their parents].
5:23:02 PM
KATIE HULL mentioned that she is now raising a family, and that
as a teenager, she became pregnant. Ms. Hull said she agrees
with the comments made by Ms. Smith, particularly with regard to
providing comprehensive sex education in the schools; giving
girls this information is the only way to "stop this whole
entire issue." Noting that she is now a teacher, she said there
are many [sexually active] girls in high school who still don't
know how to avoid becoming pregnant, and so telling them only
about abstinence isn't going to solve the problem. She relayed
that when she became pregnant, she had many options and a
supportive family and chose to keep her child, and that now that
she is an adult, her family has taken in many troubled kids who
don't have supportive families or the luxury of someone to talk
to. If the legislature tries to take away [a minor's ability to
obtain an abortion without parental consent], she predicted, it
will just make the problem a lot worse. There is nothing that
can be done to prevent families from falling apart or to prevent
kids with family problems from living on the street, and it
won't help anybody to take away their options [with regard to
terminating a pregnancy].
5:24:39 PM
CASSONDRA ODDEN, after mentioning that she is against HB 35,
relayed that she is the mother of a 3-year-old daughter and will
do her best to raise her daughter such that she will feel she
can come talk to her about any situation. She said, "The thing
is, I remember what it was like to be a teenager - I didn't
always feel comfortable talking to my parents; I hope that if my
daughter were uncomfortable talking to me about a pregnancy, she
would be able to seek counsel elsewhere." She said that she
would do anything to keep her daughter safe and healthy, and
hopes that the legislature will do so too, and do so by keeping
HB 35 from passing; there shouldn't be any more complications,
in an already complicated situation, for a teenager who needs
help.
5:26:32 PM
SCOTT PUSTAY said he is opposed to HB 35, is in favor of keeping
Alaska's teenagers healthy and safe, and thinks that the bill
will prevent that from happening.
5:27:16 PM
TABITHA CHRISMAN said she is for HB 35. She said that she has
been volunteering at a local "crises pregnancy center," and has
noticed that the happiest of the girls who come to the center
are those who have their parents involved. She offered her
understanding that in situations involving pregnant minors, "the
parents are paying for pretty much everything" and the minors
are still living with their parents. She believes, therefore,
that parents should have a say in what their children's
decisions are.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after noting that no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 35, and relayed that HB 35 would
be held over.
5:29:36 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:29 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Bellotti v. Baird.pdf |
HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Court Forms re Judicial Bypass.pdf |
HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| State v. Planned Parenthood.pdf |
HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Letters of SupportOpposition 2.pdf |
HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Letters of SupportOpposition 1.pdf |
HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB35 Sectional.pdf |
HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| HB35 version A.pdf |
HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| HB35 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| HB35-LAW-CIV-3-6-09 (2).pdf |
HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| HB35-DHSS-MS-03-09-09.pdf |
HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| Letters of SupportOpposition 3.pdf |
HJUD 3/9/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2009 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2009 1:00:00 PM |