Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/15/1997 10:04 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 15, 1997
10:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mark Hodgins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 37
"An Act relating to a requirement that a parent, guardian, or
custodian consent before certain minors receive an abortion;
establishing a judicial bypass procedure by which a minor may
petition a court for authorization to consent to an abortion
without consent of a parent, guardian, or custodian; amending the
definition of `abortion`; and amending Rules 40 and 79, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508, and 512.5,
Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska
Administrative Rules."
- MOVED CSHB 37(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 37
SHORT TITLE: PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY, KOHRING, VEZEY, MULDER, Ogan,
Dyson, Martin
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 37 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 37 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 37 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/13/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/15/97 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
No witness register
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 10:04 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Berkowitz, Dyson, Elton, Ivan and
Vezey. Member absent was Hodgins.
HB 37 - PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 37, "An Act relating to a requirement
that a parent, guardian, or custodian consent before certain minors
receive an abortion; establishing a judicial bypass procedure by
which a minor may petition a court for authorization to consent to
an abortion without consent of a parent, guardian, or custodian;
amending the definition of `abortion`; and amending Rules 40 and
79, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508,
and 512.5, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska
Administrative Rules."
Number 0033
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON wondered if there was a motion on the
floor to table the bill from the last meeting on February 13, 1997.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES explained that she never took the motion.
Number 0063
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ withdrew his motion in order to
clear up any ambiguity.
CHAIR JAMES called for debate amongst the committee members.
Number 0101
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented what impressed him the most during
the testimony was the wide variety of organizations that opposed
the bill, such as, church groups and national organizations. And,
that the Alaskan health care professionals-unanimously-expressed
reservations about the parental consent and judicial by-pass
approach. The judicial by-pass provision made this an urban bill,
he said. It would be easier and less expensive for a young teenage
mother that lived in a city than for a young teenage mother living
in a rural community. In addition, he was concerned about the
uneven application of the safety valve-the judicial by-pass-in the
same court house, for example. He was also concerned about the
young teenage mother and her dealings with an attorney. "That's a
threshold that a lot of people aren't going to be able to get
over," he declared.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that HB 37 was trying to
legislate spirituality, chastity and talk. "You just can't do
that. You just can't pass a law that says talk, communicate. It
just doesn't work," that way for dysfunctional families.
Legislation did not work for the belief in God, chastity or
drinking, he cited. In that regard, the bill made more of a
political statement than a policy statement.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated he was embarrassed for the
House State Affairs Standing Committee members because the bill was
being passed from the committee without any committee curiosity.
He cited the testimony of Kristen Bomengen, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Law, that indicated there were
constitutional problems with the judicial by-pass approach.
Therefore, by moving the bill out of the committee at this point in
time was, in essence, substituting the judgement of the committee
members with the judgement of Ms. Bomengen. House Bill 37 was
going to create a playground for attorneys for the next several
years. However, if the committee members were to explore this
issue further, it could save time and money in the long run. The
issue of constitutionality was the very fundamental question that
should be answered.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that he personally believed HB
37 told a portion of the family what it had to do. It did not
remove the government from the family. It was not a conservative
approach; an approach that allowed for the decision to be made
within the family. "It was telling one part of the family exactly
what they have to do and how they have to do it." It also bothered
him that there was an assumption if there was something wrong with
the family it was the fault of the children. "Dysfunctional
families, in most cases, aren't the kids fault. It's the parents
fault." And, here was a piece of legislation that said the young
woman had to deal with the individuals that made a family
dysfunctional.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that applying a standard rule
that all families were the same, was offensive. "It just doesn't
work. All families aren't the same." He believed that all
families could not handle candor without violence. Therefore, this
bill put a portion of the Alaskan population at a greater risk
which was what the prior testimony from the professionals indicated
as well. "Put aside whatever rigid, philosophical point of views
we may have, and just ask everybody before they vote to put those
things aside and think of what the consequences may be."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON lastly stated he appreciated the decision that
Chair James made on Thursday, February 13, 1997, to hear HB 37
again today. It allowed him to put together his thoughts.
Number 0729
CHAIR JAMES replied, "I understand that everything you said comes
from the bottom of your heart with pure sincerity." There were two
sides to every story, however. This was not an abortion issue, it
was a parental rights issue. She came to this position from her
personal experience as a foster parent and because she was a child
at one time herself. She knew how it felt when a parent told a
child what he or she could or could not do.
CHAIR JAMES further stated this was not a partisan issue either.
Until 1975, she was an active participant in the democratic party.
And, much of her belief came from that era of her life. When she
came to Alaska, however, she moved to the republican party where
she found more comfort and support of her philosophies surrounding
the change in the attitude towards families. She was concerned
that the families had been ripped away of their authority to take
care of their children.
CHAIR JAMES further stated this involved the issues of attitude,
fairness, respect and trust. She explained to her foster children
that they always started with a clean slate in her house. "In this
house we start with trust. We will trust you and expect you to
trust us until we find out that we can't." That was a hard concept
for them to understand. She also learned that her relationship
with her foster children was at best an outside one. And, her
biggest responsibility was to build the bridges and heal the wounds
within their own families. She could not give to them what their
biological family members could give to them. "The biological
contributions from a mother and a father was immense. We can't
ignore it." She also believed that there were cases when a
biological child and his or her parents could not live together.
CHAIR JAMES further stated she agreed with Representative Elton
that communication could not be legislated. She also believed that
the government should not legislate interference either; which was
what the government had been doing these past years. A child had
three choices as a minor when there was a problem: to go to his or
her parents, to go to the Division of Family and Youth Services
(DFYS), or to go to the courts. The government could not replace
the parenting or destroy the biological connections. She
reiterated HB 37 was not an abortion issue, it was a parental
rights issue.
CHAIR JAMES further stated that this issue was just the beginning,
according to the testimony of Ms. Kristen Bomengen, Department of
Law, because there wasn't any protection of parental consent for
other surgeries. Therefore, HB 37 was an immunity for the doctor
to proceed without fear of a law suit. That was the underlying
premise of the bill. She was not looking at this bill from a
medical perspective, however, she was looking at this bill from a
parental and familial perspective. That was the direction this
country needed; to encourage families to solve their problems
within themselves. She agreed there were families that were
dangerous to their children. And, she did not condemn agencies
that helped children in those situation. Moreover, if a child was
pregnant, there was a problem before she got pregnant. The problem
did not begin with the pregnancy. In conclusion, she stated she
respected the comments of Representative Elton, however, there were
two sides to this issue. "You have yours and I have mine." She
also hoped that Representative Elton respected her position as
well.
Number 1405
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated this was a highly contentious
issue; anything related to abortion or parental rights was highly
contentious. And, one responsibility of elected leaders was to
show that this type of debate could be waged civilly and without
rancor. He did not believe that he would change anybody's mind
here today. He explained, there was a collision between the
empirical evidence and the question of faith. The empirical
evidence indicated that young women would die as a consequence of
"what we do." That was a tragedy and he wished he could do more to
stop that. The question of faith was a belief that abortion, under
any circumstances, was wrong or that parents needed more rights.
He agreed with Representative Elton that this bill was another
example of governmental intrusion. In the absence of government,
there would not be a question of notification or of a judicial by-
pass. The by-pass, he said, just added another layer of
government. Moreover, HB 37 was sending a schizophrenic message to
juveniles. On the one hand, "We want juveniles to pay the price
for being criminals, we want them publicly exposed, we want to
treat them as adults. But, when they're young women who become
pregnant, we want to treat them as children." That was a difficult
discrepancy to reconcile. In addition, there was testimony
surrounding the question of what if the parents wanted an abortion
and the young woman did not want an abortion. Could a parent
compel a child to have that procedure? he wondered. And, what if
the answer was, "Yes," and parental consent was required? "If
we're going to teach people to be responsible citizens, which is
one of the roles that government has, we have to do it by stepping
back and saying this is your life and we're not going to interfere,
and we're not going to intrude." He wished that the committee
members would take the course of action to not intrude.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ further stated that everyone was sincere
in their belief and that was what made this question a wedge issue.
It pained him, however, that issues like this were used for
political purposes. "They shouldn't be," he declared. He was not
accusing any committee member of using it for political purposes,
however. He reiterated he was saddened by the course of action
today, but he felt relieved that he was able to voice his
sentiments because, "I think in the course of debate we're doing
everything we can to show people how to behave responsibility."
Number 1643
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated life was not easy and most of the
growth that he had made as an individual had been when facing a
tough situation. The decision to take the life of an unborn child
should not be easy. There needed to be as many considerations
taken in that process as possible. A discussion with a parent or
with a magistrate furthered that consideration. He shared with the
committee members that he participated in providing an opportunity
for further consideration by surrounding the door of an abortion
clinic years ago. As a result, four young women thanked him for
that later because it allowed them to further consider their
actions. He felt it was his responsibility to make this process
hard, although he was sympathetic to a woman that did not want to
be a mother. "That's just a part of what life is like." He agreed
that legislators could not legislate moral conduct. But, the law
did set standards and act as a teacher. Therefore, by stating that
children needed to involve their parents in their important
decisions then "we're doing something important."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON further stated he agreed with Representative
Elton that HB 37 was intrusive. He believed in a limited
government. But, amongst the few valid rules of government, one
was to protect the weak against the strong. He summarized a
quotation from Hubert Humphrey, U.S. Vice President, that stated
the reading of a government had to do with how well it treated the
people on the fringes-the old, the disabled, the young and the
defenseless.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON further stated it was clear that his
convictions came from a spiritual belief and the Declaration of
Independence. He declared, "We all have a right to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness" as provided for in the Declaration of
Independence. He was unable to discover the logic that children
born or unborn did not have a right to that protection.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON further stated he found nothing in the bill
that indicated children were the cause of dysfunctional families.
Nor, did he find anything in the bill that inferred all families
were the same. And, "Not all abortion providers are the same
either." There were some that were very sensitive to saving the
life of the child. Nonetheless, there were many that "cranked them
through every 45 minutes." It was one of the highest income
professions in the country. He was delighted that the state of
Alaska did not have one of these. The abortion providers in the
state had a pretty good record in terms of taking care of the
health of the mother. "For that I'm pleased." Furthermore, he
cited between 500 to 800 children were dying in Alaska to
abortions. He believed as did Representative Berkowitz that young
women would choose to go to an ill-prepared and illegal abortion
provider because of this bill and suffer or die because of it. "I
hope that doesn't happen," however.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON further stated he was very familiar with the
anti-abortion movement in the state, and every pro-life group
allowed for an abortion if the life of the mother was threatened.
Those were rare cases, however. He hoped that no abortion
practitioner would coerce a young woman to undergo an abortion and
take the life of a child against her consent. "My understanding is
most of our practitioners are more ethical than that and I hope
that that doesn't happen." He also hoped that this bill was not
for political purposes. In addition, he wondered why the pro-life
individuals believed that the four inches that a child travelled
down the birth canal changed the child's status before the law.
Moreover, the idea that children who were unwanted were in jeopardy
also scared him and that the "wantedness" of a person affected his
or her value and protection under the law. He did not believe that
either Representative Berkowitz or Elton had any malice towards
unborn children, however.
Number 2119
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated the net effect of HB 37 would not make
any difference or create any harm for the families of the committee
members. He hoped that nobody inferred that from his earlier
remarks. He was, however, concerned about the dysfunctional
families.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that he appreciated the quote
of the former U.S. Vice President and senator, Hubert Humphrey,
that Representative Dyson referred to in his remarks. As a matter
of fact, Hubert Humphrey was pro-choice. He further wondered if he
understood the comments of Representative Dyson to indicate that
the debate at this table and that the votes casted did not mean
that one was less of a statesman or less spiritual than another.
Number 2203
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that Representative Elton understood
his earlier remarks correctly.
CHAIR JAMES stated this had been a good exercise. The debate could
go on for days. It was time to move on, however. "My personal
belief is that life begins at conception." She also believed that
any action to save the mother was appropriate. She further stated
that, "My belief is mine." She was not here to condemn anyone
else's belief because she could not get into anyone else's heart.
She would never condemn or criticize anyone's belief, and she did
not want anyone to criticize or condemn her belief. The issue of
abortion was one that she did not want to talk about. But, the
issue of parental rights was one that she did want to talk about.
She also wanted to convince people-if possible-that she was right
through the example of how she led her life. That was her
religious and philosophical belief in a nutshell, and that was how
she would approach any issue. In addition, she did not believe
that HB 37 was another layer of governmental interference. In
fact, it took away a layer of governmental interference. There
were a lot more layers to go before returning to individual
responsibilities.
Number 2318
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved that CSHB 37(STA) move from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
Number 2323
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. A roll call vote was taken.
Representatives James, Dyson, Ivan and Vezey voted in favor of the
motion. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton voted against the
motion. The CSHB 37(STA) was passed out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 9:45 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|