Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/13/1997 08:06 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 13, 1997
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ivan Ivan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: Department of Administration
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."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* 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
WITNESS REGISTER
MARK BOYER, Commissioner
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
Telephone: (907) 465-2200
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Department of
Administration.
DUGAN PETTY, Director
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110210
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0210
Telephone: (907) 465-2250
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview on the purchase of the
Bank of American building in Anchorage.
ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
Telephone: (907) 465-2200
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the overview presentation by
the Department of Administration.
KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
SHARYLEE ZACHARY
Address not provided
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
ROBIN SMITH
14100 Jarvi Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 345-4407
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
JOHN COGHILL JR.
P.O. Box 58003
Fairbanks, Alaska 99711
Telephone: (907) 488-7886
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
GERALD FINKLER
1976 West Athena Court
Fairbanks, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-8425
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
DEBBIE STEELE
P.O. Box 23688
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-3515
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
KARI ROBINSON, Board Member
Juneau Coalition for Pro-Choice
No address provided
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
BRAD WHISTLER, Health Program Manager
Central Office
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110610
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0610
Telephone: (907)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-12, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 8:06 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Dyson, Elton and Hodgins.
Members absent were Berkowitz, Ivan and Vezey.
Number 0053
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced that Representative Ivan Ivan was
ill today.
Number 0188
CHAIR JAMES announced the arrival of Representative Ethan
Berkowitz.
OVERVIEW: Department of Administration
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was an overview presented by the Department of
Administration.
Number 0256
MARK BOYER, Commissioner, Department of Administration, was the
first to present an overview of the Department of Administration.
He called Alison Elgee, Deputy Commissioner; and Sharon Barton,
Director, Division of Administrative Services to the witness stand
as well. He distributed a handout titled, "Department of
Administration-Functional Organization" to the committee members.
He explained the department was traditionally organized by
function. It operated cross-functionally and laterally by
utilizing all of the resources that were needed to solve a problem.
The department was two-sided in that it focused on services to the
public and on services to other state agencies. The Office of the
Commissioner in many cases often served as the arbiter in matters
such as, procurement and labor issues.
COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated today he would focus on five
projects that illustrated how the department used its tools of
problem solving and how it interfaced with other state agencies.
They were the following: the purchase of the Bank of America
building in Anchorage, the executive order of the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV), the information services as an enabler, the flex
plan implementation (RFP) and the senior services.
COMMISSIONER BOYER also explained that Dugan Petty, Department of
Administration, was here to explain the purchase of the Bank of
America building in Anchorage. The reason for the purchase was a
result of the leasing budget under pressure every year. The
pressure was healthy, however, because it forced the department to
look at every opportunity. The big push on the Senate side had
been to look at bolder opportunities. Some of the higher price
leased property in the Frontier Building in Anchorage was up in
about two years. The Department of Natural Resources, a few other
state office, the Governor's office, the Department of Commerce,
and some senior services were located in the Frontier Building.
Therefore, the department began negotiating for the sale of the
Frontier Building to the state, of which, there was no satisfaction
of price. So, the department began to look elsewhere-the Bank of
America building. Commissioner Boyer asked Mr. Dugan Petty to
characterize the management principles that would be used for the
Bank of America building that were different than current owned
buildings.
Number 0898
DUGAN PETTY, Director, Division of General Services, Department of
Administration, explained there was a sales agreement conditioned
upon due diligence that the state was performing now. The
department had until April 15, 1997 to decide upon that
transaction. The final agreement was subject to legislative
approval, however. The department would set up a budget component
separate from the current leasing budget. In that component, the
expense of the operation of the building would be budgeted. The
expense would include the equity, maintenance, repair, management
of the property, administration, and insurance. The department was
also looking at the depreciation factor. Frankly, what would go
into the depreciation would be renewals and replacements that would
go to the up keep of the building, he stated. Therefore, the best
vehicle would be to establish a fund that was specific to the
building with legislation. The other factor to consider was the
maintenance and operation costs for the other state agencies and
private agencies that would be involved. The department projected
in the first year about $3,750,000 in income from rent and expenses
to be about $2,000,000, creating a surplus. The idea was to have
a fund that would accumulate and allow the legislature to
appropriate funds to operate and maintain the building for the
stewardship of the facility.
Number 1219
CHAIR JAMES commented she was excited to hear the proposal by Mr.
Dugan Petty. She further commented when a state bought a building
it took it off of the municipal tax rolls. She asked Mr. Petty, if
there were private tenants in a building that didn't pay municipal
taxes, was there an unfair competition? And, would you include an
amount that would be payment in lieu of taxes to the municipality?
Number 1270
MR. PETTY replied that was an excellent question. The strategy for
the Bank of America building was to honor the existing lease
agreements which had that element of tax already built in then
replace the leases with state owned space. He called it a
diminishing question. The State Employee's Credit Union asked
about acquiring space in the building, and there might be other
related businesses that the state would want to invite into the
space, however. Therefore, a structured rent base would need to be
looked at. The department was concerned about the adverse
financial impact of the loss of the tax roll to the municipality of
Anchorage. On balance, however, the purchase of the Bank of
America building was good for downtown Anchorage. The department
was committed to being in Anchorage and to being in business over
the long-haul.
Number 1360
CHAIR JAMES stated this issue was a two-headed coin. She was
concerned about the perception that the state was in competition
with the private industry that rented property to non-state
agencies and its advantage of not having to pay municipality taxes.
The term "payment in lieu of taxes" was one that needed to be
addressed because it was good business. She asked Mr. Petty to
consider these two perceptions when drafting the legislation.
Number 1397
COMMISSIONER BOYER stated it was clear that the state already
compensated municipal governments for all kinds of impacts through
the municipal assistance revenue sharing program. He asked Chair
James if she was suggesting an additional scheme for the Bank of
America Building?
Number 1416
CHAIR JAMES replied it was a separate issue. It was a perception
by the public, especially in the area of competition. And, one of
the goals of the government was to make the people more comfortable
with its role. She did not know what the answer was, however. She
only had ideas. She would like to see all facilities follow a
similar plan as the one proposed by Mr. Petty to prevent further
deferred maintenance debt. The current figure was $1 billion.
Number 1479
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON commented, "You could generate a
tremendous amount of goodwill in Juneau, if you did the same thing
in Juneau." He asked Mr. Petty how he would structure the fund for
the future maintenance and operation of the building? How would
you structure it to protect it from future legislatures?
Number 1513
MR. PETTY replied, "It's a partnership that we have with the
legislature." It could be structured so that there was clear
accountability. The Administration was dependent upon the
legislature to appropriate funds; that was its prerogative and the
Administration respected it.
MR. PETTY further stated that part of the projections mentioned
earlier assumed a third party property manager. It also assumed
the kind of maintenance and repair that was going on now in the
building. The department was really adopting a private sector
model. Perhaps, with the model and the accountability, the
appropriations would be forthcoming.
Number 1587
ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Administration, stated the kind of fund being
discussed was an internal service fund. It would work much like
the information services fund today. The problem it faced was
having the money that was the source of the payments to the fund;
the money that resided with the agencies and not the legislature.
Number 1608
CHAIR JAMES agreed with Ms. Elgee. The public drove the system,
and she could not see the public allowing the legislature to use
the funds for some other purpose.
Number 1623
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked Commissioner Boyer if the
Legislative Information Office and the legislative offices in
Anchorage were located in the Bank of America building?
Number 1633
COMMISSIONER BOYER replied it was located in the 500 block of 7th
Avenue in Anchorage.
Number 1656
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Petty who resided in the building
presently?
Number 1660
MR. PETTY replied a variety of tenants resided in the building. He
cited there was 250,000 square feet of net usable space, of which,
60,000 square feet was used by the Department of Revenue, and
40,000 square feet was vacant space. The rest of the space was
used by other tenants, such as, attorney offices.
Number 1701
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS explained he was more interested in the
percentage of what the state occupied. He wondered what the state
would do with the Frontier Building in Anchorage.
Number 1712
MR. PETTY responded the department negotiated hard with the
Frontier Building for a lease-purchase transaction but it did not
work.
Number 1789
CHAIR JAMES stated these were questions that could be asked when
the bill was before the committee members. She asked Commissioner
Boyer to precede with his presentation.
Number 1811
COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated the department attempted to
decrease the cost of state travel focusing on the Juneau-Anchorage
route. "Frankly, it's a tough nut to crack. There are cultural
issues" involved and the department found tense resistance from
many.
COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated the department was focusing on
the off-set printing business. He said it was a dead business, and
the state should be out of it altogether. The department was
looking at an on-line demand program as a replacement.
Number 1905
CHAIR JAMES stated legislation had been passed that required many
of the reports to be available upon request only. She agreed the
state should not be involved in the off-set printing business.
COMMISSIONER BOYER reiterated the department was looking at an on-
line option.
Number 1923
COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated that the department was
attempting to move the DMV to the Department of Administration. It
was understaffed and underfinanced, and it operated in an old
fashioned environment with a lot of paper, control, and handoffs.
The department had the tools to help the division and was moving
forward with that proposal. The DMV he explained was about to move
to a credit card environment for some transactions. It would bring
the cost to the state down, and it would improve service at the DMV
counter. It would be a faster transaction and the public expected
that type of service. It was also developing a transaction based
web service as other states were pushing for. In addition, a DMV
office was opening in the State of Building in Juneau on the 8th
floor. It would benefit the citizens of downtown Juneau and the
employees of the state.
Number 2147
COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated the department was involved in
re-engineering the entire personnel system of the state. He
distributed to the committee members handout titled, "Employee
Acquisition-Executive Summary." It looked at compensating people
based on their skills. It sounded simple, but that was not the way
the state did business right now. It would be a faster and cheaper
system overall. He cited an on-line application process as an
example.
Number 2286
CHAIR JAMES stated this was a beginning, "but, don't stop until
you've managed to take care of our pay schedules." She suggested
having the rates and advancements built into the system as opposed
to having the unions scream for increases. A fair system was
needed that provided those things by statute.
Number 2306
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Commissioner Boyer if the on-line
system would be just for Alaska or worldwide?
Number 2313
COMMISSIONER BOYER replied, "Once your on the planet it was hard to
get off." The doors were wide open. People did apply from outside
of Alaska, of which, a standard letter was sent explaining the
local hire philosophy. There were exceptions, however, and that
would not change; it was just a bigger world to advertise in.
There were positions that the state could not attract, recruit and
retain, such as, computer programmers. The compensation plan did
address this issue, but to be competitive in the technical market,
it would cost the state more money.
Number 2400
COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated that the state of Alaska was both
ahead and behind in information technology. It had a good team
that tried to stay current, and the department would continue to
look at ways to help the state save money. He cited the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC) was about to go on-line with its
forms. It was understaffed and underfunded so the only way to make
a difference was to move towards an electronic environment.
TAPE 97-12, SIDE B
Number 0015
COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated the flex plan implementation for
the state's health plan was underway. The fundamental difference
was to move towards a fully self-insured plan like the worker's
compensation plan.
Number 0039
MS. ELGEE stated that all of the state's insurance lines were self-
insured, except for health insurance.
Number 0044
COMMISSIONER BOYER stated it had worked in the state's interest in
the past to shield itself from disgruntled employees and providers.
It did not have that luxury any more, however. He also thought the
plan would provide some savings for the state. The supervisory
unit, confidential employees unit, three teacher groups and the
three marine units bargained for the flexible benefit plan. In
total, approximately 4,000 employees. The plan was effective on
July 1, 1997. It gave an array of choices for the employee; to
tailor the needs of each employee. The stated loaded by contract
for each employee $450 per month into an account. The balance
saved through the choice of the employee would go towards co-
payments, for example.
Number 0230
MS. ELGEE stated there was a default option for those that did not
respond. She further stated the new flexible benefit provided for
the first time a wellness component which included an informed
health care line.
Number 0254
COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated that the department continued
with the previous Administration's initiative surrounding senior
services; moving towards a full cost-of-care environment. That
meant that the cost would be based according to the market. There
was a bill that would cap the eligibility of the longevity bonus
plan, and he hoped that the legislature would look at it seriously.
It was an opportunity to redirect the savings-about $8 million-to
other programs for seniors.
Number 0331
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ applauded the department for moving the
state's health insurance towards self-insurance. It would save
money directly and it would keep Alaskan money in Alaska.
Number 0346
CHAIR JAMES thanked Commissioner Boyer for his presentation. She
encouraged the committee members to contact the Administration if
they had any further questions.
CHAIR JAMES stated the Department of Administration was a central
player in keeping the government under control. She asked
Commissioner Boyer to look at the issues of regulation review and
inter-agency technological communication. They were issues that
would fit well under the Department of Administration.
HB 37 - PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
The next 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 0434
KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services,
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, was the first person to
testify in Juneau. She was here today to primarily address the
legal issues raised by HB 37 and the Department of Law's
interpretation of the protection of privacy under the state's
constitution. The current provision in statute was not enforceable
because of rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court. The judicial by-
pass had been adopted by some states in order to make the
restricted access meet the constitutional requirements. And, under
it had been effective in some states. It would not remain
enforceable under the test of the Alaska State Constitution,
however. The conclusion came from a study of state jurisprudence
in this area. She cited the states of Florida and California where
parental consent was not enforceable because it was considered
unconstitutional. The California case was in an appeal status now,
however. Consequently, the general status of consent provisions
remained uncertain. And, in the states where stronger privacy
protections were afforded the citizens, the laws had been
unenforceable. The department believed that an Alaskan court would
find that a minor had a fundamental right to privacy which was
affected by this law. It also believed a court would find that the
interest of the state would be compelling and legitimate. However,
to meet a constitutional challenge the state would be required to
demonstrate that the consent requirement would not place an undue
burden on a young woman and that the state's interest would be
furthered by the parental consent requirement. This had been
difficult for other states to demonstrate because the courts had
not found that this type of provision improved family relationships
that had already deteriorated, for example. Another issue was the
protection of the health of the minor. Young women today were very
sophisticated about their own medical needs. The court would have
to weight that against the potential that a minor might delay the
procedure or might seek an illegal remedy because she was
uncomfortable going to her parents. In California, the evidence
was found to be overwhelming that the state was not able to
demonstrate that this means advanced its interests.
MS. BOMENGEN further stated that the department believed it would
be difficult for many young women to access the judicial by-pass
process in the rural areas. Therefore, the state would be required
to demonstrate that genuine access was available.
Number 0613
MS. BOMENGEN further stated that this law had been characterized as
one that would pull the medical procedure into conformity with all
other medical procedures that required parental consent. "In fact,
it does the opposite," she declared. "It makes this an exceptional
medical procedure in which a medical practitioner has to consider
potential criminal penalties and extraordinary tort liability when
making a decision with his or her patient." The consent
requirements related to ear piercing, for example, were not
directly addressed in state law. It was considered a general
liability concern for individuals offering the service. Medical
practitioners had some leeway to consider the needs of the minors
and the needs of the parents in deciding to provide medical care in
certain circumstances. Therefore, this bill created a different
burden for this medical procedure with regards to parental consent.
Number 0670
MS. BOMENGEN referred to Section 3 of the bill and explained it
created a new cause of action for tort liability for physicians.
She stated it would be appropriate to look at the new action in
light of the fact that the legislature was looking at tort reform.
Number 0695
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Bomengen, under existing law, what
made this procedure protected under the privacy act? Could I infer
that under existing law because of our privacy provisions in the
constitution that really a minor does not have to have parental
consent for any surgical procedure?
Number 0721
MS. BOMENGEN replied under existing law there was a flexibility
afforded to a physician and a minor patient regarding parental
consent. Parental consent was preferable and practitioners
preferred it for liability reasons. When in fact, the law
recognized that there might be instances when parental consent was
unavailable or not forthcoming. At that point, it became a matter
for the patient and the doctor to consider the best interest of the
patient and the parents and to make a decision to the best of his
or her ability without considering criminal penalties. The
procedure of abortion was protected under the federal constitution
as a matter of privacy. The United States Supreme Court ruled that
parental consent was not constitutional so the state of Alaska
needs to comply with the law of the land.
Number 0798
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Bomengen if he could infer that the
federal law allowed for any surgical procedure on a minor without
parental consent?
Number 0809
MS. BOMENGEN replied, "I don't know what the federal law in itself
states on this issue." The state law did not prohibit the offering
of medical services except under the condition of parental consent.
It did not invoke criminal penalties or tort liabilities. There
could be other liabilities, she stated, that a doctor could face
under civil law. However, it was not a case where there was an
outright prohibition as HB 37 called for.
Number 0854
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he still did not understand why under
existing law that the surgical procedure of an abortion had privacy
protection while others did not, for minors.
Number 0865
MS. BOMENGEN replied she could answer that questions conclusively.
It had been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court; the state had to
take its guidance from that decision. She was not aware of other
surgical procedures that the court had addressed other than in the
realm of parents practicing christian science methods, for example.
Number 0901
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Bomengen what U.S. Supreme Court decision was
she referring to that gave abortion special protection?
Number 0919
MS. BOMENGEN replied it was the Planned Parenthood v. Danforth
court case. She would reply with more specifics later.
Number 0927
CHAIR JAMES stated this whole issue had nothing to do with
abortion. The issue had to do with parental rights. She saw a
great disaster in this country because the government felt it had
a better handle on children than the parents. She would like to
know why there was privacy with this issue-abortion-and no privacy
with other issues. Furthermore, it was not a private issue
according to society because it was on television every day.
Number 0973
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that testimony indicated there
was privilege communication when a juvenile was being treated for
a sexually transmitted disease. He asked Ms. Bomengen if that was
accurate?
Number 0986
MS. BOMENGEN replied, "Yes, it is accurate." There was a provision
in statute that specifically addressed the treatment of sexually
transmitted diseases. It also addressed treatment that might come
outside of that realm, in which, parental consent was not
forthcoming.
Number 1008
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Bomengen if there were any other
procedures where parental notification was not required?
Number 1021
MS. BOMENGEN replied no immediate thing came to mind. The general
rule was not that parental consent was mandatory in all cases and
that a physician would face criminal and tort liability if he did
not secure parental consent. The general rule was that when a
minor sought medical care, the practitioner should make an effort
to secure parental consent. But if a parent was not available, and
consent was not forthcoming, then the practitioner and the patient
should weigh the interest of the patient and the parents and
proceed to the best of their judgement.
Number 1065
CHAIR JAMES stated there was no provision in the law at this point
in time that a physician ever had to get parental consent. "It's
not a shall, it's a maybe should, but not a shall." Was that a
correct summarization?
Number 1084
MS. BOMENGEN replied she would not want to characterize it in quite
that way because there is a stated preference in the law that
parental consent be obtained; that efforts should be made to obtain
parental consent. "You're correct in stating that it's not
mandatory. It is not worded as a `shall.' It's not an absolute
necessity that a parent be notified if a minor is seeking some sort
of treatment." There were considerations that a physician might
look at in order to determine if treatment was appropriate without
consent.
Number 1119
CHAIR JAMES wondered if emergency care was an example. She further
wondered if the bill was broad enough. She reiterated this whole
issue was the rights of parents. She had an aggressive attitude
about this because of her personal experiences as a foster parent.
She reiterated this was not just an abortion issue, it was a
parental rights issue. "I think we need to lead our state back
into the direction of giving parents more control over their
children."
Number 1164
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated a family was both the parents and the
children. In this instance, the government was telling the child
element of the family what she must do. Therefore, this bill was
an intrusion of the government in that portion of the family.
Number 1192
CHAIR JAMES replied the government should not tell the children
what to do. The government should have the parents tell the
children what to do. "That's what we're doing in this bill; is
saying that the parent needs to tell the child, not the government
have the child tell the parent what they're going to do." Her
belief on this issue had absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
It had to do with whether or not parents were in charge of their
children, or whether or not the government was in charge of the
children.
Number 1245
MS. BOMENGEN stated the provisions in statute were constructed so
that they recognized the real world problems that individual minor
patients faced. That included the issue of seeking treatment for
sexually transmitted diseases, for instance. And, looking at the
reality of what types of discouragements there were for the child
seeking that type of treatment, and what the public health
responsibility would be for the state. In a general context, it
acknowledged the position of a physical when he or she was
confronted with a minor seeking medical treatment.
Number 1301
CHAIR JAMES stated she understood the position of the physicians.
A physician felt he or she was obligated to the needs of the
patient. It did not relate to the issue of parental rights,
however.
Number 1338
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Bomengen if getting a 13 year old girl
pregnant was illegal? If a 13 year old kid got her pregnant then
it was misbehavior and not an illegal behavior. However, if a 16,
17, 18, 20 year old or a family member got her pregnant, then it
was an illegal act. She wondered if the perpetrator would be
punished if the parents were not allowed to be involved.
Number 1452
MS. BOMENGEN replied a countervailing consideration went to the
concern of victim's rights. What type of imposition did this put
on a young girl to come forward and pursue a criminal remedy? Some
consideration needed to be given to the minor.
Number 1488
CHAIR JAMES stated the parents were every bit a victim as the child
in this scenario. "That's my point. The child is part of a
family. The child is not out of a family until it reaches its
maturity or emancipation. The idea that the child was out there
with freedom to do what he wanted with government protection--the
only government protection was for abuse, and to not separate those
two issues was distressing."
Number 1520
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Bomengen if the Department of
Law attached a fiscal note to this bill?
Number 1562
MS. BOMENGEN replied there was no fiscal note submitted by the
Department of Law. It was a general practice not to submit a
fiscal note for anticipated constitutional challenges because there
was the chance it would not be challenged. She believed, however,
that this bill would be challenged.
Number 1615
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he had two legal opinions from private
attorneys. He wondered if there was a legal analysis from the
Department of Law.
MS. BOMENGEN stated she would put her notes into a memorandum
format.
CHAIR JAMES opened the committee meeting up to the teleconference
network.
Number 1669
SHARYLEE ZACHARY was the first person to testify via teleconference
in Petersburg. She was the mother of three daughters. In the
state of Pennsylvania, the rate of abortions went down because of
a parental consent provision, and the growth of crisis pregnancy
centers around the state. This indicated that parental consent did
make it possible for families to work together through a pregnancy
situation. And, that the centers were working with the child
through the pregnancy by finding the resources associated with
bringing a child to full term. Usually the parents had the best
interest of their children at heart, she stated. They had the best
maturity to sort through what was best for the child and not to
railroad the child into a quick fix situation that ultimately
became financially beneficial for someone else. She appreciated
the comments of Chair James surrounding the issue of not separating
the child from the family. There were abusive situations, however,
where a separation was needed. But, a judgement should not be made
based on the unfortunate few.
Number 1892
ROBIN SMITH was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. She stated dealing with an unwanted pregnancy was
extremely difficult. Unfortunately, in the U.S. when a woman
became pregnant there was only one acceptable choice-to have the
child and become a good mother. An abortion was considered a
heinous offense and society did not accept that giving up a child
was a wonderful, loving act. "We prosecute parents who want
anonymity and abandon a child on someone's door." She asked, "What
position do we put women in who have an unwanted pregnancy?" If a
woman felt threatened her actions could become extreme. She cited
the unwanted grandchild of Representative Jerry Sander's who died
of starvation, as an example. The parents wanted to help their
older children through their desperation, but it did not happen.
Even in good families, the communication process was not
necessarily there. "You cannot order family interaction." She
understood the intent of the legislature, and she prayed for better
family communication. She preferred birth control or abstinence to
abortion. But, when an abortion was not readily accessible the
results were dangerous back alley procedures. The way to reduce
abortions was to reduce unwanted pregnancies. "I implore you to
spend your efforts in this direction." Research indicated that the
vast majority of Americans supported more money spent on family
planning. "Please use your religious convictions for the common
good and address the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and not the
consequences."
The record reflected the arrival of Representative Al Vezey at 9:35
a.m.
Number 2059
JOHN COGHILL JR. was the next person to testify via teleconference
in Fairbanks. He approved of HB 37. It was good public policy
because it encouraged parental responsibility. He cited in statute
the state held the parent accountable in almost every area of life
even for emancipated children. The state was assuming a
responsibility that really was the parent's right and
responsibility. He suggested amending it to the age of 18 like a
bill in the Senate. Moreover, the family needed to be protected.
The Alaska State Constitution gave the basis for the family to
carry that responsibility. However, there was a shift in the
definition of family. The bill would at least give more weight on
the responsibility of families. "I hope you folks stick with it.
I know it takes a little courage. I know it goes against the
political correctness of liberalism. Don't be afraid of what the
Supreme Court is doing. Allow the legislature to carry its weight
of the balance of the check and balance system."
Number 2236
GERALD FINKLER was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Fairbanks. He was a college student. He saw the concerns of
parental consent. He also saw that the benefits outweighed the
reasons for the concern.
Number 2278
DEBBIE STEELE was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Ketchikan. She concurred with the testimony of Robin Smith in
Anchorage. She was opposed to HB 37. "We cannot legislative
family structure." Protecting the health of minor women needed to
begin before the unwanted pregnancy. None of us believed that
abortion was the answer. It was a tool that had been used, but it
was not the answer. The minor should be able to have a choice.
There were circumstances that most of us would not understand that
would prevent a young girl from feeling safe from telling her
parents. That was a terrible state to be in, but it was the truth.
She urged the committee members to vote against HB 37. "It's not
an issue that needs to be dealt with in the legislature." It was
between a woman, her physician, her family-hopefully-but it doesn't
belong in the legislature."
Number 2448
KARI ROBINSON, Board Member, Juneau Coalition for Pro-Choice, was
the next person to testify in Juneau. The coalition was opposed to
HB 37. The sponsor claimed that the bill would promote
communication and parental involvement.
TAPE 97-13, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. ROBINSON further stated that the American Academy of Pediatrics
opposed parental consent laws. These laws resulted in later and
riskier abortions. The AMA found that parental notification laws
increased the gestational age at which the induced pregnancy
termination occurred increasing the risk. The American Academy of
Pediatrics had taken the position that legislation mandating
parental involvement did not achieve the intended benefit of
promoting family communication. But, it did increase the risk of
harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medal
care. The facts were that health care providers did encourage teen
to talk to their parents of which most teen did. Prior testimony
indicated that this type of law affected those young women who
could not tell their parents. They had important reasons for not
telling their parents-usually abuse. To involve the parents could
put the teen at further risk of harm. No matter how loving and
caring a family was there was no guarantee that a daughter would go
to her parents if she found herself pregnant. And, the tragic
result of denying access to health care for teens resulted in
unsafe and illegal abortions. The legislation did not promote the
health and safety of young women, it put them at greater risk. The
judicial by-pass prevents a formidable barrier to young women. It
did not provide an accessible and confidential alternative. Its
only effect was to hinder a minor from obtaining an abortion. She
reiterated HB 37 put young women's health and safety at risk.
While unconstitutionally restricting a women's right to choose.
Number 0229
BRAD WHISTLER, Health Program Manager, Central Office, Division of
Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services, was the
next person to testify in Juneau. He distributed to the committee
members three handouts. The first was a list of national
organizations that opposed similar legislation that was before
Congress in regards to Title X. The second was an editorial on a
study addressing the relationship between abortion and breast
cancer. The study did not find a link between breast cancer and
abortion. It also addressed the disclosing and reporting issue of
an abortion that would contribute to the results of a study. The
third was an article from the American Journal of Psychiatry
titled, "The Psychological Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion-Denied
and Completed." It concluded that there was not a link between an
abortion and depression. When there was a link it was found to be
related to prior incidents in the woman's life.
CHAIR JAMES announced she was ready to move the bill from the House
State Affairs Standing Committee. The next committee of referral
was the House Judiciary Standing Committee. She called for a
motion.
Number 0413
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved that CSHB 37(STA) move from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He called it a procedural
objection. The bill was advertized for public hearing on Saturday,
February 15, 1997. If the bill was moved today the public would be
denied their opportunity to testify.
CHAIR JAMES replied she understood the concern of Representative
Elton. The Saturday meeting was cancelled anyway because of other
things. She reiterated the next committee of referral was the
House Judiciary Standing Committee where testimony would be taken.
Number 0476
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that he was bothered by the
motion because he planned on having debate in the committee on the
bill. He was not prepared today for debate. It had been indicated
to him that the bill might not even be moved out of the committee
on Saturday. He would be ready for Saturday. "Quite frankly,
Madame Chair, this process distresses me. I don't think it is fair
to the public and I don't think, frankly, it's fair to me."
Number 0515
CHAIR JAMES thanked Representative Elton for his concerns. She
disagreed, however. She believed there had been a good hearing on
this bill. The discussion had ensued during the testimony and
additional discussion would not make any difference.
Number 0533
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ also objected to the motion. "I think
what this does is-and I say this with all due respect-but it gives
the appearance that these proceedings are a charade if we're not
even allowed to discuss our views." It was clear what his views
were at this point, but he would be very interested in what the
other members of the committee had to say on this subject before
casting a vote. Likewise, he would like to think that what he
would have to say would impact the other members. "If we deprive
this bill of substantive debate, that does an injustice to the
process."
Number 0577
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON withdrew his motion. He agreed with Chair
James that the debate would not change the votes, but he wanted to
respect the process so that the members could debate amongst
themselves. He very much respected the efforts of Chair James to
move the bill forward.
Number 0609
CHAIR JAMES replied, "Quite frankly, I don't believe that any
amount of argument, any amount of debate, that we haven't already
had in the testimony is going to change a vote in this committee."
Her goal was to move legislation through the process. She
respected the withdrawal of the motion-nevertheless-made by
Representative Dyson.
Number 0659
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Chair James if he could make a
motion to table the issue until Saturday, February 15, 1997, or
until Tuesday, February 18, 1997.
CHAIR JAMES replied she was not interested in tabling the bill.
She was interested in moving it out of the committee or not moving
it out of the committee. She would prefer to move it out. She
yielded to the committee members for a motion.
Number 0687
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that CSHB 37(STA) move from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
Number 0706
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected.
CHAIR JAMES stated the committee was out of time today. She
announced it would meet at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 15,
1997, of which, the committee would debate the issue then move the
bill to the next committee of referral. The motion was left on the
floor.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0728
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 9:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|