Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/08/1998 04:40 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
8 April, 1998
4:40 p.m.
TAPES
SFC 98 # 120, Side A (000-590)
Side B (590-539)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Bert Sharp, Co-Chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 4:40 p.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-Chair Sharp, Senators Adams, Parnell and
Phillips were present when the meeting was convened.
Senators Donley and Torgerson arrived later.
Also Attending: Representative TERRY MARTIN; DWIGHT
PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor; BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director,
Division of Income and Excise Audit, Department of Revenue;
KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Division, Department of Law; LIZ DODD, President, Alaska
Civil Liberties Union; BETH KURTULLA; CAREN ROBINSON, Alaska
Women's Lobby; PETER NAKAMURA, MD, MPH, Director, Division
of Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services;
NANCY WALLER, Division of Medical Assistance, DHSS MIKE
GREANY, Director, Division of Legislative Finance and aides
to committee members and other members of the Legislature.
via Teleconference: From Anchorage: NEIL SLOTNICK,
Commercial Section, Civil Division, Department of Law;
PATRICIA MACK; ROBIN SMITH, Alaska Pro-Choice Alliance; From
Fairbanks: RONNIE ROSENBERG, Arctic Alliance;
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SENATE BILL NO. 345
"An Act relating to apportionment of business income."
Co-Chair Sharp announced a representative from the
Department of Law, NEIL SLOTNICK, was available to comment
on this bill if the committee so desired. He noted at the
last hearing, there was no representation from DOL and the
bill was held in part for that reason.
Senator Parnell said he did have a question for the
department. He referred to a letter dated April 7, 1998
from Deborah Vogt, Deputy Director of Department of Revenue,
which said both the DOL and the DOR agreed that the
retroactive repeal of the tax on foreign carriers would have
no affect on closed cases. He wanted Mr. Slotnick to
comment on whether he agreed with the statement of the
letter, and if so, his reasons for agreement.
Mr. Slotnick, via teleconference, responded. He did agree,
but he qualified his agreement by saying that he had not
read any cases that addressed the issue. He explained that
a closed tax year was generally closed through agreement of
the parties and as a consequence, was generally a binding
contract. He did not believe that a retroactive application
of a tax exemption would be grounds for reopening a closed
year, which would essentially be reopening a closed
contract. Unless the legislation specifically provided that
it was for the purpose of reopening these contracts, he
added.
Senator Adams had a question on the same letter. He quoted
part of Ms. Voght's statement in the letter: "As I testified
this morning, we can't calculate the amount of taxes that
have been paid on Section 883." The senator then referred
to another letter dated April 6, 1998, which said, "We
conclude that the retroactive application of this exemption
probably violates the public purpose clause of the Alaska
Constitution." He continued reading from further into the
same letter, " A retroactive tax exemption that forgives a
liability owed to the state is equivalent to a direct
appropriation and cannot be made unless it serves a
purpose." His question of Mr. Slotnick then was if the
department therefore was stating that the bill was
unconstitutional.
Mr. Slotnick's response was that in his view, as expressed
in the aforementioned memorandum to Ms. Vogt, that the
retroactive tax exemption was likely unconstitutional. This
was because it appeared to be an appropriation for the
benefit of individual and not to the general public, he
expressed.
Senator Adams asked if the assistant attorney general was
deriving his argument from Article 9 Section 6 of the State
Of Alaska Constitution. Mr. Slotnick affirmed as much.
Senator Parnell shared for the recently arrived Senator
Donley his earlier question to Mr. Slotnick and Mr.
Slotnick's confirmation that the legislation would not
affect closed cases. Senator Donley expressed that was good
news.
Senator Adams then repeated the questions and answers
regarding the bill's constitutionality for Senator Donley's
benefit. Senator Phillips challenged Senator Adams
interpretation of Mr. Slotnick's comments as saying the bill
was unconstitutional. Senator Adams asked the assistant
attorney general to restate for the record his opinion on
the matter.
Mr. Slotnick's response was as follows: "In my view,
Senator Adams through the chair, that the retroactive - is
the retroactivity clause in SB 345 would be likely to be
found unconstitutional if challenged."
Co-Chair Sharp asked about the retroactivity on collecting
taxes on ELF, which was found to be constitutional. He
spoke of the passage of ELF in 1989 by the Legislature and
its retroactive date for collecting taxes prior to the
effective date of the bill. Mr. Slotnick was not familiar
with the specific case but judged that collecting taxes
would serve a public purpose. He mentioned other problems
associated with retroactively imposing taxes having to do
with notice and due process.
Co-Chair Sharp announced that the House of Representatives
passed a companion bill earlier in the day, which would be
read across the Senate floor tomorrow. Therefore, this bill
would not be moved out of committee at this meeting, but
would wait until the other bill arrived in the Senate
Finance Committee. The reason for hearing the bill today,
he explained was to allow members to hear from the DOL.
To Senator Donley's understanding, Mr. Slotnick agreed with
the statements of DOR's memorandum dated April 7. Mr.
Slotnick voiced his agreement with the legal analysis, but
said he was not up to date with the factual analysis and
wouldn't offer an opinion on that portion.
This concluded discussion on the legislation and Co-Chair
Sharp ordered SB 345 set aside.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 234(FIN) am
"An Act relating to assistance for abortions under the
general relief program."
Co-Chair Sharp noted this was the first hearing for this
bill in the Senate Finance Committee. During this meeting,
the members would hear public testimony. Testimony would be
limited to three minutes because the teleconference was only
available until 6:30 p.m.
The sponsor of the bill, Representative Terry Martin, was
invited to speak to the legislation. His testimony was as
follows:
"The purpose of HB 234 is to change the priority of programs
under the General Relief [Medical Program]. Over the past
four years we have heard the Governor and his Administration
complain about the Legislature's not having enough money for
eyeglasses for children, for emergency dental care for
senior citizens - all kinds of things."
"As I looked into the issue, we find out that what's really
happened is that the free abortion rate has accelerated to a
pace that's unbelievable. For instance, in one year from
'96 to '97 the number of free abortions have increased 116
procedures. That's way out of line. We find out that
perhaps part of that reason has to do with the child
enforcement services doing a better job making the fathers
of children pay for their off-springs, whether they're
married or not."
"So it seems to be that the male partner involved in these
activities are encouraging to get free abortions, it being a
matter of convenience more than of need. It certainly does
not have much to do with economic needs either as I'll show
you later."
"One of the things that really surprise me about this bill,
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, is the number of
public support that has come in. Here I have petitions that
I did not initiate and we divided them by communities,
whether they be Fairbanks, Kenai, Juneau and so on, and I'm
just amazed at the number of people that know about this
bill and the reason why we've introduced it. So outside of
those petitions, which have over 5,000 names on them, we
have been receiving tremendous amount of POM's and I have
some of them printed here. We put them in different
sections of the state, whether it be Anchorage, Fairbanks,
Kenai, whatever. But it shows that a lot of public interest
has been generated that they do not want public monies, to
the point that we are doing it now, to be used on free
elective abortions and that abortions should not just be
another kind of safe sex option."
"This bill is intended to solve the number one problem that
the Governor and the Administration has complained about and
that is how General Relief money is spent."
"We made this the lowest priority because even though we
talk about poor people all the time not having money, things
have dramatically changed in the last 25 years since
legalization of abortion. Many citizens throughout this
state and a large number of them receiving abortions have
the money - and especially the boyfriend or the male partner
has the money. We always talk about the poor lady, but
basically we found out that they do not follow the
requirements [unable to decipher]...by settlement by former
Commissioner Ted Mala. The department does not have to
check any requirements whatsoever of someone wanting an
elective abortion. They're just like a free bill. I don't
know where the offices are in Anchorage. They just call 'em
up, get an appointment and go in and charge it to the state.
The state its looks like that [undecipherable] say well all
we're worried about is the major code, what type of
abortions did they do. We don't want to go too personally
into the person's qualifications of even being eligible for
Medicaid."
"So there [are] no guidelines whatsoever, but that's outside
this bill. The bill is: do we want to allow all the money
that we appropriate to the General Relief [Medical Program]
to be used for abortions as the number one priority and then
allow the Administration to constantly say this is not
enough money for glasses or emergency dental service."
"It's such nature all through the statistics that we've
found out that, the chairman and members that - I think once
we delve into what's happening as to the abortion policy of
Alaska is most disturbing. For every white child that is
aborted, three Native children are aborted. For every white
child that is aborted five black children are aborted. That
is a very, very bad policy for the state to follow. Under
the guise of poor is a terrible way to solve your problem of
poor people is to abort their children."
"I just think that we can reverse this situation. We can
make the males responsible for paying for their own deeds,
their own irresponsible activities rather than just the
female suffer through the abortion. Certainly the public is
opposed to public funding of abortion of this nature."
"Also by putting this at a lower priority than you will have
more money for dental care or other services that are deemed
necessary that Medicaid does not pay for."
"I think I'll leave it right there at that point, Mr.
Chairman so if you have anyone that has a question. I do
want to say that Alaska is probably the most liberal state
in the nation and abortions pay for anything. We literally
have no laws restraining people under government sponsored
paid abortions. Thirty-two states do not pay for abortions.
In the last two years, four states that were paying for
abortions have now stopped. I've just got reports this
morning that South Carolina legislation approved in the
Senate stopped public funding of abortions. North Carolina
did that last year and they went through their state supreme
court and it was upheld. Just because a person has a
constitutional right to something doesn't mean that the
state will pay for it, whether it be freedom of the press or
free speech or free abortions. Michigan has stopped this
state funding of abortion. They never did allow elective
abortions or free abortions. One other state has solved
their problem with the courts and have stopped funding of
abortions."
"In this case here, we're not asking to stop it, we're
asking that it be given a lower priority over other medical
needs."
Senator Adams understood Section 1 of the bill, however, he
asked the representative to go over Section 2 as it had
changed one or two times. Basically he wanted to know what
was covered under abortions. He also wanted to know if
there was a definition of physical disorder.
Representative Martin spoke to the changes made to the
original bill. He said the bill was amended during the
House debate to allow for abortions in the case of rape,
incest and when the life of the mother is in danger. This
was the same as the current law.
Representative Martin brought up the petition he had earlier
mentioned. He offered to share it with any committee
members if they were interested in reading the names of
people from their community.
Co-Chair Sharp moved on and began taking public testimony.
He reminded speakers they would be limited to three minutes,
and that he would first call on those waiting to testify via
teleconference.
First to be heard was PATRICIA MACK, who was linked to the
meeting from Anchorage. Her testimony was as follows:
"The purpose of this - It is unfair to take away the ability
for the poorest women in this state to exercise their right
to..."
Co-Chair Sharp interrupted, asking her to state her name and
any affiliation for the record. Ms. Mack began again.
"My name is Patricia Mark and I'm speaking for myself."
"I feel it's unfair to take away the ability for the poorest
women in the state to exercise their right to choose, which
is what this bill would do."
"Despite what was said earlier, a lot of these women are
poor and just because their boyfriends could pay for their
abortion doesn't mean they will pay for an abortion. It's
not so easy to say, 'honey give me some money.' A lot of
these men have either abandoned these women when they found
out they were pregnant and just said, 'tough luck, you're on
your own.' That's reality."
"If a woman can't afford an abortion, an unplanned pregnancy
would place an incredible financial burden on her. And
plus, pregnancy would cost the state's general relief
program a lot more money than an abortion would, which will
mean there is even less money for things such as speech
therapy and dental services for the elderly. So you're
really not going to get the results you think you are if you
force these poor women to have an abortion - or I mean to
have - to go through an unplanned pregnancy."
Co-Chair Sharp called upon the next person in Anchorage to
testify, ROBIN SMITH. Her testimony was as follows:
"I am speaking on behalf of the Pro-Choice Alliance and we
have about 3,500 members actively participating here in
Anchorage."
"I'd like to look at the consequences of this law. First of
all there will be an increased number of second trimester
abortions. No one likes abortions. Most people would agree
the later an abortion occurs in a pregnancy, the more
objectionable it becomes. With low-income women, one of the
primary reasons to delay an abortion is difficulty in
obtaining financing. This delay also increases the health
risk to a woman having an abortion later in the pregnancy."
"The negative affect on the family of an unintended
pregnancy - and this is according to the Institute of
Medicine's report, The Best Intention's 1995 - the mother is
more likely to seek prenatal care after the first trimester
or receive no prenatal care at all. She is more likely to
expose the fetus to harmful substances, such as tobacco,
alcohol or drugs. The child of an unwanted conception is at
greater risk of having low birth weight, of dying in the
first year of life and of not receiving sufficient resources
for healthy development. The mother may be at greater risk
of physical abuse herself and her relationship with her
partner is at a greater risk of dissolution. Both mother
and father may suffer economic hardship and fail to achieve
their educational and career goals."
"There's also a negative impact on the unwanted child. They
frequently experience more mental handicaps and are twice as
likely to receive psychiatric care at government's expense;
are more than twice as likely as wanted children to have a
juvenile delinquency record; are six times more likely to
receive some form of welfare between the ages of 16 and 21;
and are at increased risk of suffering abuse, neglect,
abandonment and removal to foster homes or institutions."
"This bill would also cause an increase in medical costs to
the state as opposed to what Representative Martin said.
Nationwide, when public funds are unavailable, 20 percent of
Medicaid eligible women, who want to have an abortion, carry
their pregnancy to term. In our state that percentage could
approach 40 percent due to poor access and greater travel
expenses."
"So, had Alaska not paid for 843 abortions last year, then a
minimum of 169 births, or 20 percent, would have occurred.
Alaska pays $8,617 per pregnancy. So the total cost would
have exceeded $1,456,000 or an increase of $950,000 over the
total of last year's abortion expenses. This does not take
into account the child's eligibility for medical care for
its first year or any high risk pregnancy costs."
"Alaska would be increasing its medical costs and actually
decreasing the monies available in the GRM."
"In conclusion, HB 234 is not a cost saving bill as
professed. Its negative affects will only add to our
societal woes. In this era of decreasing welfare benefits -
and when we are asking families to be more self-reliant -
this bill is a contradiction to provide - we need to be
providing support for low-income women and their family's
needs."
Co-Chair Sharp attempted to call on a testifier from the
Fairbanks teleconference hook-up, but the connection was
broken and he moved on to those people waiting to testify in
person at Juneau. He invited CHRISTIAN BOMENGEN, Assistant
Attorney General, Human Services Section of the Department
of Law to come to the table. She introduced herself and
began speaking:
"I want to address the fact that this bill has the effect of
cutting off abortion funding under the GRN program, except
it does provide for an exception for when the life of the
pregnant woman is in jeopardy, or in cases of reported cases
of incest or rape. Medicaid coverage generally does require
coverage under those circumstances, however under Medicaid,
one is not allowed to require the rape or incest be
reported."
"This does not have an exception for the physical or
physiological health of the mother. Thus it's limiting not
only elective procedures as has been represented on
occasion, but also other medically indicated procedures."
"Even though it's permissible in some states to limit the
availability of abortion funding under the federal
constitutional test, Alaska's constitution contains explicit
privacy protection that has been interpreted as providing
more protection to individual liberties than the privacy
rights that have been inferred under the federal
constitution. Last year we saw the decision of the Valley
Hospital case that more clearly articulated the fact that
reproductive rights are fundamental in Alaska; that they're
encompassed within our privacy provision; that they may be
legally constrained only when the constrains are justified
by a compelling state interest and no less restrictive needs
could advance the interest."
"Other states that offer exclusive privacy protection in
their constitution though that recognize a higher degree of
protection for those individual rights, have determined that
when the state provides for any pregnancy related services
it must do so in a constitutionally neutral manner. In
other words, even if a state is not obligated to pay for the
exercise of the constitutional rights, once it chooses to
dispense funds for pregnancy related services, it has to do
so in an evenhanded manner nondiscriminatory and cannot
withdraw those funds simple because a woman chooses to
exercise a constitutionally protected right."
"This principle is also supported in Judge Tan's Superior
Court decision in Planned Parenthood via Alaska, which
addressed the minor's right to seek an abortion without
first having to obtain parental consent. In that decision,
he applied an equal protection test to the governmentally
drawn distinction between a minor who chooses to seek an
abortion and one who doesn't. He concluded that the
government could not establish a compelling interest to
justify the classification of minors in this way.
Similarly, the equal protection analysis will apply to the
distinction that's now being drawn between adult women who
make different reproductive choices."
"The state does not have a compelling state interest that
would allow it to withstand the equal protection challenge."
"I can refer to a number of state cases in which this
principle is elaborated upon. Minnesota case addresses the
question of whether the state can fund child birth related
health services without funding abortion services. That's
excluding the woman from receiving benefits solely because
they chose to make a constitutionally protected health care
decision. The court determined that the state had to
provide public funds for medically necessary or therapeutic
abortions. To not do so impermissibly infringed on a
woman's fundamental right of privacy."
"West Virginia's case, when the state government sought to -
seeks to act for the common benefit such as it does when it
provides medical care to the poor, has an obligation to do
so again in a neutral manner."
There's also Connecticut cases, Massachusetts cases. I
guess if I could just take a few moments, one thing that may
be helpful is to draw your attention to a case that was
cited in the Minnesota case. As a parallel that applies the
principle of when a government engages in a program it has
to do so in a way that doesn't infringe upon the exercise of
a constitutional right. Maybe we could move to a more
neutral subject such as religion."
Co-Chair Sharp asked Ms. Bomengen to summarize as her three-
minute time limit had passed. She continued.
"This is simple, the example I want to state. The court in
Minnesota examined a South Carolina decision state rule that
said that the - the decision said that the state could not
operate its unemployment security program in a manner that
infringed on the constitutionally protected right to
exercise an individual's religion. In this case, a man was
a Seventh Day Adventist who had refused a job that required
him to work on Saturdays. The court decided there that the
state could not condition its availability of those benefits
on whether he chose to exercise his constitutionally
protected rights."
That concluded Ms. Bomengen's testimony. Senator Parnell
asked for a copy of her speech.
The teleconference hook-up was reestablished with Fairbanks
and Co-Chair Sharp called upon RONNIE ROSENBERG to testify.
She spoke as follows:
"I'm representing the Arctic Alliance For People, which is a
consortium of 43 non-profit social service agencies. We
oppose any attempt to cut the general relief program. I'm
not going to get into a long dialog plus or minus abortions.
However, I will tell you that we service many, many
individuals who are recipients of the General Relief Medical
Program. We would implore you to find the funding somehow
to fund this program in its entirety so we do not have to
pit people with hearing disabilities against people who need
prosthetics against people who need emergency dental care."
"Many of our clients are people who would otherwise fall
between the cracks. Many of them are people who are
awaiting SSI determination. I do volunteer SSI appeals.
I'm an attorney and I do volunteer SSI appeals and up here
it can be three years until we get a written decision.
Meanwhile people with seizure disorders and other kinds of
medical needs, without General Relief Medical, they would
have absolutely no way of receiving medical care and of
course their medical conditions would worsen and they would
end up in the emergency room at a higher rate of pay."
"So however you can fund General Relief Medical, I would ask
you all to find the will to fund it in its entirety. It is
very, very necessary for people who are living on less than
$300 a month. And that is basically what I wanted to say on
this bill."
There were no questions or comments of Ms. Rosenberg. Co-
Chair Sharp resumed calling on people in Juneau to testify.
NANCY WALLER from the Division of Medical Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services came to the table.
Her testimony was as follows:
"I would like to address the fiscal note for this bill. I
prepared a fiscal note that's dated 1/23/98 for the CS HB
234 (FIN). Representative Hanley replaced my fiscal note in
the House Finance Committee with his own fiscal note
assuming that a small number of women would carry their
children to term."
"I did a lot of research and discovered a study that was
conduced in the state of Texas in the two years following
the eliminate state funding for abortions there. The Center
for Disease Control reports on this study that in those two
years they found that 35 and 40 percent of the low-income
women ended up carrying their children to term. In the
fiscal note that I have is based on the 35 percent of the
women currently receiving abortions, carrying their babies
to term and becoming eligible for the Medicaid programs for
themselves and their children. We believe that a higher
percentage is applicable in Alaska because the cost of
health care in Alaska is much higher here than it is in the
lower 48. You can get an abortion in Seattle for about
$250. It costs about $600 for our program, largely because
of transportation related costs. Those people have to fly
to a different community."
Senator Parnell asked how, if her fiscal note reflected the
costs of children who were going to be born rather than
aborted, why that would have any bearing on the
transportation costs to Seattle for an abortion. Ms. Waller
replied she felt the higher percentage of women who would
carry their children to term and therefore become eligible
for Medicaid was applicable in Alaska because of the cost of
receiving the abortion procedure in the state. It was not
available in many communities; people had to fly to
different communities.
Senator Parnell wanted to know if her argument for the
fiscal note increase was be because of the additional
children born who would be eligible for Medicaid. Ms.
Waller said based on the study that was her belief. She
felt the 35 percent birth increase was more defensible than
the 20 percent inserted in the House Finance Committee's
fiscal version of the fiscal note.
Senator Parnell questioned if the lack of availability of
abortion services didn't come into play, would the
division's version of the fiscal note talk about the cost of
providing health care for children who would be in the
Medicaid system. Ms. Waller argued that a higher percentage
of birth and higher health care costs for the children who
would automatically be eligible for Medicaid during their
first year of life.
Senator Adams noted that his bill packet didn't have a copy
of the fiscal note drafted by the Division of Medical
Assistance. He only had the fiscal note written by the
House Finance Committee. He expressed a desire for all
members to have a copy of the earlier version for
consideration and comparison.
Senator Parnell countered that the only fiscal note the
committee should be looking at was the one that traveled
with the bill. If the committee decided to draft a new
version, they could debate past versions at that time.
Co-Chair Sharp called upon DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director of
the Division of Public Health, Department of Health and
Social Services. He spoke as follows:
"Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'll take just a
few seconds of my three minutes to again promote Public
Health Week to you all and encourage our parents [watching
the proceedings] on TV to get their children immunized.
They're not doing a good job now and we'd like to do
better."
I'd like to use the rest of my three minutes just to state
that on all the abortion bills that I've been testifying on,
we've run into significant controversy because of the
reasons for people participating in the debate are all
different. We're not all in it for the same reason. Some
are in it for moral and religious reasons. Some are in it
for economic reasons. Frankly, I'm coming from one
perspective and that's health. As a director of Public
Health, I feel that we need to comment on the health
implications of such a bill."
"There's no question - and I challenge anyone to debate me,
on this that we'll have more unwanted children born in
Alaska. We'll have more children who will be subject to
child abuse. We already have 15,000 cases reported a year
of child abuse and neglect. We can expect a significant
number of these kids to end up in that situation."
"We're going to have more domestic violence. We have
studies showing that unwed parents of unwanted children are
subject to greater degrees of violence. In Alaska we're one
of the leaders in that area."
"We're going to find that there will be a larger number of
kids in the state who didn't get the opportunity to get the
education and pursue a career because they had to dedicate
their life at a very early age to be a mother. Something
that they were not ready for at this point."
"So I guess basically the bottom line is that the costs to
the State Of Alaska in terms of medical and health related
problems would be very significantly increased by such a
bill."
"One other comment I'd like to make about the bill itself,
is that it gives exceptions for a number of conditions: if
the mother's life is at risk or if the lady who's pregnant
was raped or if there's incest. But nowhere does it make an
allowance for a mental problem. There are individuals who
are pregnant and who suffer significant mental distress that
could result in further medical and physical complications.
These people are not addressed. They are excluded."
Co-Chair Sharp asked how the doctor would control the level
of mental distress. Was he talking about a previous mental
disorder, he wondered? Dr. Nakamura replied it could be a
previous mental disorder or it could be brought on by the
present state of pregnancy. Co-Chair Sharp indicated that
was what he was afraid of. Dr. Nakamura stressed there was
always concern about potential suicide or self-induced
medical problems such as self-induced abortions on these
individuals who didn't have the ability to handle it because
of their mental distress.
Co-Chair Sharp reopened the topic on immunization admitting
that it wasn't the focus of this meeting, but noting the
public health director had mentioned it twice to the
committee during the day. He asked why the immunization
rates had deteriorated so much since he was a child and
didn't have a choice. He had been immunized before being
released from the hospital. Why wasn't that done now, he
questioned. Dr. Nakamura answered saying the number of
vaccines increased significantly. The number of shots when
up from about 10 to 18 to complete a series. He added that
the population had doubled since 1980. Therefore, he
concluded there were more children, more vaccines and more
diseases to protect them from, while there had been no
increase in resources to meet the need.
Dr. Nakamura talked of another reason for the decline in
immunizations, which was due to the success in reducing
outbreaks of the diseases. Because of this, parents were
getting complacent and not having their children immunized
in a timely manner, he disclosed. He quoted statistics of
expected cases of various diseased were the immunizations
not received.
Co-Chair Sharp asked if it were mandatory for children to be
current on their shots before they would be allowed to enter
school. Dr. Nakamura told him it was, but the problem was
the need to protect children before they reached the age of
three.
Senator Phillips questioned if there was a religious
exemption to the requirement. Dr. Nakamura affirmed there
was.
Dr. Nakamura thanked the committee for allowing him to speak
further on the issue.
Co-Chair Sharp called on the next witness, LIZ DODD,
President of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union. Her
testimony was as follows:
"First point, I wanted to respond to the sponsor's statement
that this what the people want. I believe the last time
this exact proposal was before the voters in the state, they
voted to keep the funding in place. I'd also like to
respond to a statement that Alaska Natives are receiving GRM
abortions at the rate of three to one of white people. I
think what that means to me is that if this passes, that
Native population would be three times more discriminated
against by virtue of being denied the access that they're
entitled to."
"The ACLU - I've talked to the lawyer who handled this case
when the Hickel Administration tried to pass regulations
removing GRM funding in 1992. The ACLU sued the state.
They settled with us and the regulations were never
implemented. I've talked to the lawyer who handled that
case. She assures me that this law is patently
unconstitutional under the Valley Hospital case. I just
want to make a point that even if all of the constitutional
amendments that seek to quote, overturn the Valley Hospital
case are passed by this Legislature, those changes to the
constitution will not reach the fundamental decision in that
case that the woman has a fundamental right to an abortion.
The state can't interfere with it. I won't go on and on
about that, just ask you to take a look at the letter I sent
today that talks about how defunding for poor women
interferes with their ability to exercise their
constitutional rights."
"I'll ask you not to pass the bill out of committee for the
simple reason that it won't stand, that it's unlawful. It's
a political measure not a good piece of legislation. I hope
do the right thing there."
Senator Phillips commented that the best argument was the
vote in 1992.
Co-Chair Sharp called upon BETH KERTULLA to testify next.
She introduced herself as an attorney representing herself
and continued as follows:
"The legislation would potentially deny poor women the
choice to have an abortion, but would allow them the choice
to carry a pregnancy to term. I believe this would be a
denial of equal protection and that our courts would
overrule it, and it's an unfortunate step backward."
That concluded Ms. Kertulla's testimony and Co-Chair Sharp
called CAREN ROBINSON. She spoke representing the Alaska
Women's Lobby and said the following:
"Most of you know the Alaska Women's Lobby has a supportive
membership of at least 1,000 within the state. Kinda feel
like we're here as de ja vue and not under any illusion that
what we have to say today is going to change any of your
minds. But I guess I do believe it's really important to
remind everyone that this bill is harmful to women's health
and unfairly discriminates against poor women who chooses to
exercise her constitutional rights."
"Low income women have often have difficult time raising the
money to pay an abortion and according to one study, they
need an average of twice as much time to raise the necessary
funds than do middle or upper-income women. Also according
to an American Medical study..."
Tape #120 Side B, 5:25 p.m.
"...federal funding restrictions that deter or delay women
from seeking early abortions make it more likely that women
will continue a potential health threatening pregnancy to
term or undergo abortion procedures that would endanger
their health."
"Mr. Chairman, the funding for abortions under general
relief programs should be handled like all other pregnancy
related services and not singled out just because some of us
object to this particular medical procedure."
"The bottom line, no matter what you may believe
philosophically about abortions and funding priorities, as a
practical matter, this bill will lead to unwanted
pregnancies, children having children and more back alley
and self-induced abortions. That is a great step backward
and we believe that fact alone is good enough reason to
leave this bill behind. I wish that Senator Pearce was here
again to day because I just really hope that you guys will
please pull off the shelf, three-a-day children having
children and please look at the recommendation within that
report and continue to work with us in trying to find ways
to help people have planned pregnancies and do what we can
to stop children from having children."
Senator Parnell understood her argument, but emphasized this
bill would put abortion and related services and supplies in
a place on the Medicaid priority list, where if funding was
cut on the Medicaid funding list, it would be the first item
to go. Why should elective abortions be treated as more
important on a priority list than hearing aids for seniors,
eyeglasses for children etc., he asked. Ms. Robinson
responded that funding for abortion procedures belonged in
the same place on the priority list as every other pregnancy
related services. She gave herself as an example and said
that if she were pregnant and decided to carry her baby to
term, she should be in the same priority position than if
she were to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy.
Subjecting abortion procedures to a different standard was
what her organization objected.
Senator Parnell noted that eyeglasses and optometrist
services were already in a different standard than
prosthetic devices on the priority list. He questioned why
abortions should be treated different. He felt they were
all very personal medical choices. Ms. Robinson repeated
her argument that all pregnancy related medical services
should be categorized the same. She took the opportunity to
go on record supporting the position of the Arctic Alliance.
She felt more importantly, anyone in need of any type of
medical care should receive that care.
This concluded public testimony for this bill. Co-Chair
Sharp held the bill until the full committee could be
present to deliberate.
Senator Parnell requested a brief recess at 5:33 p.m. The
committee resumed less than a minute later.
Co-Chair Sharp announced the next scheduled committee
meeting to be Wednesday, April 15 at 9:00 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Sharp adjourned the meeting at approximately
5:35 p.m.
SFC-98 (3) 4/8/98 pm
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|