Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/22/1995 09:04 AM HES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                         March 22, 1995                                        
                           9:04 a.m.                                           
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
 Senator Lyda Green, Chairman                                                  
 Senator Loren Leman, Vice-Chairman                                            
 Senator Mike Miller                                                           
 Senator Johnny Ellis                                                          
 Senator Judy Salo                                                             
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
 All members present.                                                          
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
 SENATE BILL NO. 121                                                           
 "An Act making an appropriation for deferred maintenance for the              
 University of Alaska; and providing for an effective date."                   
 SENATE BILL NO. 105                                                           
 "An Act relating to a requirement that a parent, guardian, or                 
 custodian consent before a minor receives 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 Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 40, 53,              
 and 79; Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 204, 210, 212, 213,               
 508, and 512.5; and Alaska Administrative Rule 9."                            
 SHES - 3/33/95                                                                
 SB  98  (PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995) was scheduled, but              
 not heard this date.                                                          
  PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION                                             
 SB 121 - No previous action to record.                                        
 SB 105 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated                
 SB 98 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated                 
         3/8/95, 3/10/95, 3/13/95 and 3/17/95.                                 
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
 Wendy Redman, Vice President                                                  
 University Relations                                                          
 Statewide University of Alaska System                                         
 Juneau, Alaska                                                                
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Discussed SB 121 and the needs of deferred               
 Terri Lauterbach, Attorney                                                    
 Legislative Legal Counsel                                                     
 Legislative Affairs                                                           
 130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                  
 Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105                                                     
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Discussed her legal opinion of SB 105.                   
 Robin Smith                                                                   
 14100 Jarvi                                                                   
 Anchorage, Alaska 99515                                                       
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Urged the committee not to pass SB 105.                  
 Betty Kremer                                                                  
 6615 E 11th Avenue                                                            
 Anchorage, Alaska 99504                                                       
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 105.                                        
 Natasha Calvin                                                                
 Sitkans For Choice                                                            
 Box 2966                                                                      
 Sitka, Alaska 99835                                                           
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 105.                                          
 Floyd Seekins, Chairman                                                       
 Homer Crisis Pregnancy Center                                                 
 PO Box 1264                                                                   
 Homer, Alaska 99603                                                           
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported the passage of SB 105.                         
 Dr. Claire Vivier-Mines                                                       
 Fairbanks, Alaska                                                             
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Discussed concerns with SB 105.                          
 Deborah Gilcrest, Chair                                                       
 Planned Parenthood Council on the Kenai Peninsula                             
 PO Box 2023                                                                   
 Soldotna, Alaska 99669                                                        
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed SB 105.                                          
 Theda Pittman, Part-time Coordinator                                          
 Alaska Pro Choice Alliance                                                    
 PO Box 201844                                                                 
 Anchorage, Alaska 99503                                                       
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Suggested that SB 105 is not good public                 
                      policy and offered suggestions to prevent                
                      adolescent pregnancy.                                    
 Jan Deland                                                                    
 2303 E 49th CT                                                                
 Anchorage, Alaska 99507                                                       
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported SB 105.                                        
 Lisa Penalver                                                                 
 Fairbanks Coalition for Choice                                                
 1166 Skyline Drive                                                            
 Fairbanks, Alaska 99712                                                       
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Questioned the wisdom of forcing teens to have           
                      babies and suggested alternatives for                    
                      preventing pregnancy and abortion.                       
 Randall Burns, Executive Director                                             
 Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)                                           
 419 Barrone                                                                   
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
 POSITION STATEMENT:  ACLU opposed parental consent/notification               
 Shari Paul, Vice President                                                    
 Juneau Coalition for Pro Choice                                               
 PO Box 22860                                                                  
 Juneau, Alaska                                                                
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Emphasized that SB 105 is dangerous.                     
 Janine Reep, Assistant Attorney General                                       
 Human Services Section, Department of Law                                     
 PO Box 110300                                                                 
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                     
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Stated that the Administration opposed any               
                      restriction to a minors access to abortion and           
                      she discussed the legal aspects of SB 105.               
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
 TAPE 95-19, SIDE A                                                            
 SHES - 3/22/95                                                                
          SB 121 APPROP: U OF A DEFERRED MAINTENANCE                         
 Number 002                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social                 
 Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:04 a.m. and noted that in             
 the interest of time the meeting would begin as a work session                
 until a quorum arrived.  She introduced  SB 121  as the first order           
 of business before the committee.                                             
 WENDY REDMAN, Vice President for University Relations for the                 
 Statewide University of Alaska System, handed out information to              
 the committee members regarding deferred maintenance.  The deferred           
 maintenance booklet is not specifically geared towards SB 121.  She           
 stated that the deferred maintenance problem currently totals $157            
 Number 045                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that a quorum was present and the meeting was            
 officially called to order.                                                   
 WENDY REDMAN felt that most would recognize the great need for                
 repair and maintenance of all the state facilities.  The University           
 of Alaska (U of A) makes up approximately 50 percent of the state's           
 facilities.  She noted that 85 percent of the state facilities that           
 are over 30 years old belong to U of A.  She spoke to the following           
 problems that have come up in dealing with this deferred                      
 maintenance problem.  First, many people believe this is a                    
 Fairbanks problem which has created a problem in receiving funding            
 in the past.  The Fairbanks campus is the oldest campus in the                
 system; Fairbanks contains 65 percent of all the facilities in the            
 system although those facilities are spread throughout Alaska.  She           
 also pointed out that the Fairbanks campus has 92 percent of the              
 facilities in the system that are over 20 years old.                          
 Ms. Redman stated that the second issue relates to the myth that              
 this problem has been created due to the systematic mismanagement             
 or a misappropriation of maintenance funds over time.  That issue             
 has been audited.  She explained that in 1986, the university took            
 a 20 percent budget cut.  At that time, $1 million was taken from             
 the operating maintenance budget at the Fairbanks campus in order             
 to allow for the continuation of programs that had already begun.             
 That $1 million was replaced the next year.  She emphasized that              
 there had been no movement of money from the operating maintenance            
 accounts since that time.                                                     
 Ms. Redman explained that the operating maintenance budget was                
 below the level of funding needed to stay ahead of this problem.              
 She acknowledged that buying paint is unattractive for legislatures           
 to fund.  The Board of Regents passed a policy last year that                 
 requires each campus to reallocate existing funds in order to raise           
 maintenance budgets up to the formula within a three year period.             
 The Fairbanks campus did a reallocation of $2 1/2 million of                  
 existing funds to the maintenance funds this year.  She pointed out           
 that this reallocation takes money from other programs.  She                  
 informed the committee that the Anchorage campus has approximately            
 $40 million in deferred maintenance.                                          
 Number 120                                                                    
 SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to her reference to the Anchorage campus;           
 does that mean the campus itself or the entire Anchorage system?              
 WENDY REDMAN explained that she was referring to the Anchorage                
 system.  Of the $40 million needed, $30 million would be needed for           
 the Anchorage campus.  She offered to provide a list of the exact             
 projects that are necessary.                                                  
 SENATOR LEMAN asked if these maintenance projects would be                    
 contracted or would they be done by existing maintenance staff.               
 WENDY REDMAN noted that would be a mix, but the majority of the               
 maintenance would be contracted.  Ms. Redman pointed out that                 
 almost all of the bidding would be local hire, within Alaska.                 
 SENATOR SALO asked if the student's of these campuses had the same            
 priority list as the university.  WENDY REDMAN recognized that the            
 two would not perfectly match.  Last year the package had $45                 
 million in classroom facilities and $35 million in dormitory                  
 projects.  Ms. Redman noted that system wide there is $35 million             
 of housing maintenance needed.  Student housing should be one of              
 the university's highest priorities.  Ms. Redman pointed out that             
 some research facilities, which also generate income, are                     
 unavailable for use due to maintenance problems.                              
 SENATOR MILLER inquired as to how much of the requested $35 million           
 would be used this summer.  WENDY REDMAN specified that the bid               
 ready projects for this summer would be approximately $7 million.             
 Time for planning would be necessary.  For example, many of the               
 dorms have already been programmed for the summer with elder                  
 hostels and such.                                                             
 Number 195                                                                    
 SENATOR MILLER assumed that if the funding was approved before the            
 end of the fiscal year, some maintenance projects could be done               
 during the school year.  Then by the next summer, the remainder of            
 the $35 million would be planned for use.  WENDY REDMAN said yes,             
 the university hopes to be able to set up a planning fund with a              
 portion of that $35 million in order to get projects bid ready.               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was a mix on locations.  WENDY REDMAN           
 directed the committee to page 9 of the deferred maintenance                  
 booklet which contained lists for residential and non-residential             
 for a $75 million package.  The $45 million non-residential is the            
 highest priority of the non-residential project listed by site.               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if this amount of money would give the                   
 university a good chance at achieving the projects listed on page             
 9.  WENDY REDMAN clarified that page 9 referred to a $75 million              
 fund, therefore the $35 million fund of SB 121 would allow the                
 achievement of at least half of the projects.  Currently, there is            
 not a detailed list of how the $35 million would be spent.                    
 SENATOR MILLER moved that SB 121 be moved out of committee with               
 individual recommendations.  Hearing no objections, it was so                 
 SHES - 3/22/95                                                                
       SB 105 PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION                       
 Number 237                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced  SB 105  as the next order of business              
 before the committee.  She indicated that this bill would be heard            
 for approximately an hour.                                                    
 SENATOR LEMAN noted the presence of a Lauterbach memo in his packet           
 on which he may want to comment.                                              
 TERRI LAUTERBACH, Division of Legal Services with the Legislative             
 Affairs Agency, stated that she was present to answer legal                   
 questions; she neither supported or opposed the bill.                         
 SENATOR MILLER referred to the 3/13 memo from Ms. Lauterbach and              
 indicated that he had questions.                                              
 SENATOR ELLIS suggested that Ms. Lauterbach could summarize her               
 memo in order to set up for any questions.  After Senator Leman               
 noted that he, Senator Miller, and Senator Ellis had read the memo,           
 Senator Ellis said that perhaps questions could be taken first and            
 then Ms. Lauterbach could summarize the memo.                                 
 SENATOR MILLER asked if Ms. Lauterbach was specifying in her memo             
 that SB 105 may be unconstitutional in the Alaska Supreme Court due           
 to Alaska's Right to Privacy clause in the constitution.  TERRI               
 LAUTERBACH replied that yes, the right to privacy in Alaska's                 
 Constitution is more explicit that the protection of privacy under            
 the federal constitution.  California and Florida both have                   
 explicit privacy clauses; those states have found through state               
 court cases that this type of parental consent is unconstitutional            
 under their state constitutions.                                              
 SENATOR MILLER asked if a minor would be afforded the same privacy            
 rights as an adult.  TERRI LAUTERBACH said that was her                       
 understanding.  California and Florida found it so and there would            
 be no reason to believe Alaska would find it differently.                     
 SENATOR MILLER asked Ms. Lauterbach if a court would find health              
 care to be a constitutional right.  TERRI LAUTERBACH did not see              
 the relevancy.  SENATOR MILLER explained that the issue of health             
 care would be relevant because all the other parental involvement             
 statutes for some type of medical care would be cast into doubt.              
 TERRI LAUTERBACH pointed out that there is already a statute that             
 allows minors to consent to their own medical care for pregnancy              
 related conditions.                                                           
 Number 302                                                                    
 SENATOR LEMAN stated that there are 22 areas in Alaska Statutes in            
 which parental consent or notice would be required.  He asked if              
 those statutes would also be considered unconstitutional.  TERRI              
 LAUTERBACH explained that reproductive rights and the ability to              
 control one's pregnancy are the types of health care which have               
 been found by courts to require a compelling state interest to                
 require parental consent.  Ms. Lauterbach did not know if the other           
 parental consent situations required a compelling state interest.             
 Under Roe vs. Wade and decisions since then, this type of health              
 care has been found to be a fundamental right.                                
 SENATOR LEMAN noted that he had requested and received other legal            
 opinions that draw different conclusions than that of Ms.                     
 Lauterbach.  He stated that this issue may end up in litigation.              
 In response to Senator Salo, TERRI LAUTERBACH agreed that other               
 medical issues are not treated by the court in the same manner as             
 reproductive issues.  Ms. Lauterbach clarified that she had not               
 researched other medical issues; she had been asked to research               
 abortion decisions.                                                           
 SENATOR SALO asked if a minor in Alaska could legally be treated              
 for a sexually transmitted disease confidentially.  TERRI                     
 LAUTERBACH said yes, that is in the same statute.  Ms. Lauterbach             
 believed that there was no question that privacy is implicated in             
 this type of statute.  There is also no question in the court                 
 decisions of California and Florida that the state has an interest            
 in protecting the health of minors and in encouraging parent-child            
 relationships.  Ms. Lauterbach clarified that the Florida court               
 found that those interests were not compelling enough to override             
 the privacy interest.  The California court found that the interest           
 was compelling, but the legislation does not promote them.  In                
 conclusion, Ms. Lauterbach explained that it ultimately depends               
 upon the type of evidence that could be presented on both sides.              
 Number 352                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired of Ms. Lauterbach's reference to the                  
 state's compelling interest; is that opposed to the parental                  
 interest?  TERRI LAUTERBACH specified that she referred to the                
 state's compelling interest as opposed to the state's interest in             
 promoting the legislation.  Ms. Lauterbach clarified that the                 
 interest which has been asserted to be protected by this type of              
 legislation is the protection of the minor's psychological and                
 physical health, the promotion of the parent-child discussion                 
 regarding health care, the increase in the medical information or             
 history available if a parent is involved, and the ability to guide           
 a minor's decision in such a decision.  The courts have found those           
 to be important state interests to be advanced by legislation.                
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what state interest meant.  TERRI LAUTERBACH             
 defined state interest as a state's reason for imposing special               
 requirements on a minor's decision to seek an abortion.  There must           
 be a public purpose involved in any legislation which would limit             
 someone's rights or abilities to exercise a decision about their              
 own care.  SB 105 would impose a limit on what minor's could do               
 regarding these kinds of decisions; therefore, the state needs a              
 rational or compelling reason to place those limits.                          
 SENATOR ELLIS requested that Ms. Lauterbach's legal opinion be sent           
 to the teleconference sites.  He felt that it was important to                
 contact legal services for an opinion on this legislation.  He                
 indicated the need to have other legal opinions before the                    
 committee as well.  SENATOR LEMAN said that he would pass out those           
 opinions to which he had earlier referred.  CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed             
 to send the legal opinion to the teleconference sites.                        
 SENATOR MILLER summarized that Ms. Lauterbach believed that the               
 court may find SB 105 unconstitutional, however, if the state could           
 illustrate compelling interest then the Alaska Supreme Court could            
 find the legislation constitutional.  TERRI LAUTERBACH pointed out            
 that the memo says that those interests are compelling; the issue             
 is whether or not the evidence could show that those interests are            
 advanced by the legislation.                                                  
 SENATOR MILLER asked if in Ms. Lauterbach's opinion, if the state             
 could do that then the Alaska Supreme Court could find SB 105                 
 constitutional.  TERRI LAUTERBACH replied yes.                                
 Number 404                                                                    
 SENATOR SALO expressed interest in going through Ms. Lauterbach's             
 opinion for a summary.  This legislation does infringe upon the               
 personal rights of minor women in Alaska.  She requested that Ms.             
 Lauterbach speak to those personal rights and the privacy clause in           
 the Alaska Constitution.                                                      
 TERRI LAUTERBACH stated that Senator Salo's assessment was correct            
 in that there is an infringement on the rights of minor women.  The           
 issue is whether the infringement can be justified.  If the same              
 type of evidence is presented in Alaska that was used in the                  
 California case, the Alaska case would seem to end in the same                
 results.  She pointed out that a representative of the Attorney               
 General's office was present and perhaps their opinion would be               
 more appropriate.                                                             
 SENATOR SALO inquired as to how Alaska's privacy clause compared to           
 those in California and Florida.  TERRI LAUTERBACH noted that she             
 had not made a word for word comparison.  The main point is that              
 those states' constitutions explicitly set forth a privacy clause             
 as does Alaska's Constitution while the federal constitution does             
 not.  The right to privacy under the federal constitution is an               
 unstated intangible right.  When a state explicitly sets a privacy            
 right, those states usually have a higher standard for                        
 SENATOR LEMAN emphasized that SB 105 does not infringe upon those             
 rights.  SB 105 provides a judicial by-pass for what is currently             
 in state law which is the parental consent provision.  The                    
 infringement is in existing state law, which is not enforced.                 
 SB 105 makes existing law operable; the restriction already exists            
 in the current law.                                                           
 CHAIRMAN GREEN moved on to public testimony and requested that                
 testimony be limited to two minutes.                                          
 Number 462                                                                    
 ROBIN SMITH, testifying from Anchorage, stated that she wished                
 there were fewer abortions, however, abortion cannot be legislated            
 into extinction.  Men participate in sexual intercourse as well as            
 women, although women usually suffer the consequences.  She                   
 informed the committee that 30 percent of fathers of babies born to           
 girls under 16 are fathered by men in their twenties and older.               
 Condoms are the only cheap, easy to use, effective, safe, non-                
 prescription method of contraception; the male partner must chose             
 to use it.  Rape and incest force women into pregnancy.  She                  
 reiterated that good family interactions and communication cannot             
 be legislated.                                                                
 Ms. Smith asserted that SB 105 delays and potentially complicates             
 the situation.  She suggested encouraging not legislating more                
 parental involvement in our children's lives.  Be better role                 
 models.  She emphasized the need to make men as responsible for               
 child rearing and financial support as women.  She stated that                
 abortion was merely a symptom of unwanted pregnancies.  Prevent the           
 pregnancies, do not complicate the situation.  She requested that             
 SB 105 not be passed.                                                         
 BETTY KREMER stated that she supported SB 105.  She expressed the             
 need to enforce parental involvement in such an important issue.              
 Abortion is a dangerous medical procedure.  She said that tubal               
 pregnancies are responsible for 20 percent of the maternal deaths;            
 many studies show that is roughly doubled for women who have had an           
 abortion.  She noted that women who have abortions in the first               
 trimester have approximately twice the risk of obtaining breast               
 cancer.  She indicated that a legal abortion was not a safe                   
 abortion.  Women who seek reproductive freedom through abortion may           
 damage or lose their reproductive ability.  SB 105 ensures parental           
 SENATOR SALO asked Ms. Kremer if she felt that her daughter would             
 consult her on an issue as serious as pregnancy.  BETTY KREMER said           
 that her older daughter would, but that her younger daughter would            
 eventually in time.  In response to Senator Salo, Ms. Kremer said             
 that she did not believe that a state law would be needed in order            
 for her daughters to talk to her about this.  Ms. Kremer was                  
 concerned for other parents, the first person a child talks to is             
 very important and very influential.                                          
 Number 523                                                                    
 NATASHA CALVIN, representing Sitkans for Choice, opposed SB 105.              
 She addressed the testimony from Monday's hearing in which someone            
 discussed the alleged medical and psychological dangers to young              
 teens who had abortions.  Data gathered under former Surgeon                  
 General, Edward Coupe, determined that carrying a pregnancy to term           
 is 7 to 25 times more likely to result in the death of the woman              
 than a first trimester abortion.  The figures would worsen for a              
 pregnant teen.  The American Psychological Association reported               
 that abortion does not cause more psychiatric problems than an                
 unwanted pregnancy.  She pointed out that all this information was            
 in the "Federal Role in Determining the Medical and Psychological             
 Impact of Abortion in Women," Report 102392 of the 101st Congress.            
 Ms. Calvin informed the committee that the suicide rate of teen               
 parents is seven times that of teens that are not parents.                    
 Pregnant teens seeking refuge in the Anchorage Salvation Army                 
 frequently have been physically and sexually abused.  In 1987, nine           
 babies of teen mothers in Alaska died before their first birthday.            
 Babies, of teen mothers, surviving past the neonatal period, are              
 more likely to be hospitalized, to die of injuries and infections.            
 Teen pregnancy in Alaska is a crisis.  She expressed the need to              
 work to prevent pregnancy.                                                    
 FLOYD SEEKINS, Chairman of the Homer Crisis Pregnancy Center,                 
 supported the passage of SB 105.  He stated, from experience, teens           
 need help with pregnancy.  He felt that these teens would be better           
 served if they consulted with their parents or a court appointed              
 person.  There needs to be consistency in the treatment of parental           
 involvement.  He said that in most cases, parents would know best.            
 For the preservation of family and state unity, Mr. Seekins                   
 supported passage of SB 105.                                                  
 Number 571                                                                    
 DR. CLAIRE VIVIER-MINES, a Gynecologist testifying from Fairbanks,            
 spoke to the health care ramifications of abortion.  She addressed            
 the danger of abortion.  In her experience, abortion is one of the            
 safest operations.  She explained that the general safety of any              
 operation would depend upon the following factors:  the training              
 and experience of the operator, the length of the gestation in                
 which the abortion is performed...                                            
 TAPE 95-19, SIDE B                                                            
 Dr. Claire Vivier-Mines continued with the general factors                    
 affecting an operation.  Any delay in the process such as the                 
 judicial by-pass would increase the risks.  Another factor                    
 determining the safety of the operation would be the anesthetic               
 used; the abortion procedure can usually use a local anesthetic               
 which is generally safer.  The presence of other medical conditions           
 such as sexually transmitted diseases may increase the risk of the            
 procedure.  Dr. Claire Vivier-Mines stated that the risk to the               
 health of a pregnant teen would be greater when the pregnancy is              
 carried to full term rather than terminating it with an abortion in           
 the first trimester.  According to the Public Health Policy                  
 Implications of Abortion published in 1990, abortion is 25 times             
 less likely to result in the death of a woman than carrying the               
 pregnancy to term.  The death rate from abortion is 0.5 of 100,000            
 procedures while the death rate from child birth is 10 per 100,000            
 full term pregnancies.  Pregnancy related lividity is higher than             
 abortion related lividity.                                                    
 Number 568                                                                    
 Dr. Claire Vivier-Mines refuted the accusations that abortion is              
 not a safe procedure.  According to the "National Abortion                    
 Federation Fact Sheet of 1991," 90 percent of abortions are                   
 performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, of those women 97               
 percent do not have complications.  Former Surgeon General Coop               
 reported in 1987 and 1988 that after an abortion physical health              
 and quality including infertility, low birth rate, and other issues           
 were no more frequent in women who had experienced abortion than              
 the general population.                                                       
 Dr. Claire Vivier-Mines informed the committee of the medical                 
 definition of abortion.  By making the state definition of abortion           
 different from that of the medical definition, national statistics            
 would be confused.  Regarding the consistency of SB 105 in relation           
 to other parental involvement laws, Dr. Claire Vivier-Mines                   
 indicated that children find ways around forced parental                      
 involvement under existing laws.  Minors can consent to medical               
 treatment without parental consent for sexually transmitted                   
 diseases, outpatient care for alcohol and drug abuse, and care for            
 the prevention or treatment of pregnancy.  She noted that a minor             
 that is or has been married can consent to any medical care without           
 parental consent.  Dr. Claire Vivier-Mines contended that if a                
 minor can consent to pregnancy and adoption of her baby then the              
 minor should be able to give her own consent for an abortion                  
 without parental consent or judicial by-pass.                                 
 SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to the number of abortions Dr. Claire               
 Vivier-Mines performed on minors in a year.  DR. CLAIRE VIVIER-               
 MINES said that she did not have those numbers from her computer.             
 Nationally, 25 percent of the abortions performed are performed on            
 women under the age of 20, women under the age of 17 make up 10               
 percent of the abortions performed.                                           
 SENATOR LEMAN asked how many minors do not involve their parents,             
 of those abortions performed on minors under the age of 18.  DR.              
 CLAIRE VIVIER-MINES informed the committee that in states without             
 parental consent laws, approximately 60 to 70 percent of minors               
 include their parents in an abortion decision.  The remaining                 
 percentage consult an individual they trust.                                  
 SENATOR LEMAN clarified that he was inquiring of her personal                 
 practice when asking the previous question.  DR. CLAIRE VIVIER-               
 MINES did not have information regarding that.  Dr. Claire Vivier-            
 Mines did understand that parental consent was already a law, but             
 she pointed out that there was an Attorney General's opinion which            
 said that law was unconstitutional without judicial by-pass.                  
 Number 503                                                                    
 SENATOR LEMAN stated that changing the definition of abortion was             
 done in order to establish the idea of intent.  That change was               
 done upon the advice of legal counsel to make this legislation                
 operable with a U.S. Supreme Court Review.  DR. CLAIRE VIVIER-MINES           
 understood that, but reiterated the difficulties in meshing medical           
 and legal definitions.                                                        
 SENATOR LEMAN asked if due to the medical definition, the 2,400               
 medical abortions reported by Alaska's Department of Health &                 
 Social Services include spontaneous abortions.  DR. CLAIRE VIVIER-            
 MINES stated that medical terminology regarding abortions does not            
 specify whether the abortion is medically induced or spontaneous.             
 SENATOR LEMAN said that he would review this concern about the                
 definition of abortion in the Judiciary Committee.                            
 SENATOR ELLIS asked if the Department of Law would be testifying.             
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said the department was on the list to testify.                
 Number 482                                                                    
 DEBORAH GILCREST, Chair of Planned Parenthood Advisory Council on             
 the Kenai Peninsula, opposed to SB 105.  Regarding Section 1, if a            
 minor is pregnant, the family already has far greater problems than           
 this legislation could solve.  She stated that SB 105 would                   
 continue the destructive cycle already occurring in society,                  
 children growing up in single parent families and most often in               
 poverty.  She asked if the sponsors of SB 105 knew the answers to             
 the following questions:  how many of these pregnant minors are               
 never supported, emotionally or financially, by the male's parents;           
 how many pregnant teens never finish high school; how do the                  
 average annual costs of raising a child compare to the average                
 salary of a high school drop out?                                             
 Ms. Gilcrest noted that adolescence is not the time to be raising             
 a child.  SB 105 places difficulties for the pregnant teen who has            
 chosen to seek an abortion.  She said that the decision to have an            
 abortion was not a parent's decision nor was it the right of a                
 stranger, a judge or a court appointed attorney, to make the                  
 decision.  She requested a copy of the statistics from which SB 105           
 draws the conclusion that other states with parental involvement              
 legislation have seen significant decreases in abortion and                   
 pregnancy rates.  Until laws are in place requiring mandatory                 
 pregnancy prevention education and/or free birth control to minors,           
 the State of Alaska has no right to condemn pregnant teens to a               
 life of poverty and the other hardships associated with an                    
 unplanned pregnancy.  She encouraged the sponsors of SB 105 to                
 review and reconsider Section 1-4-2 regarding the physical and                
 emotional affects of an abortion.  Have the sponsors considered the           
 physical and emotional consequences of being a teenaged single                
 mother?  In conclusion, Ms. Gilcrest requested that the State of              
 Alaska stay out of the private business of pregnant women.                    
 SENATOR LEMAN interpreted Ms. Gilcrest's testimony as saying that             
 it would be better not to live rather than live in poverty; that              
 condemns the child to death due to the anticipation of the mother             
 living in poverty.  That is an extreme position.                              
 SENATOR SALO thanked Ms. Gilcrest for her testimony.  She stated              
 that Ms. Gilcrest presented the perspective of a teen very well.              
 Senator Salo expressed concern with the pregnant teens ability to             
 deal with the judicial by-pass portion of SB 105 and inquired as to           
 the thoughts of Ms. Gilcrest in regard to that.  DEBORAH GILCREST             
 felt that judicial by-pass would be another deterrent which would             
 prolong the choice that the teen has already made.  That delay                
 could increase the medical risks of the abortion.                             
 Number 425                                                                    
 THEDA PITTMAN, a part-time Coordinator for the Alaska Pro Choice              
 Alliance, stated that such laws are not good public policy; such              
 laws do not achieve what they intend to achieve.  She indicated               
 that there is a great deal of evidence in other states that suggest           
 that the provisions including the judicial by-pass provision are              
 not necessary.  She asserted that those teens who do not consult              
 their parents have good reasons for that which the courts would not           
 argue.  The Minnesota and California court cases demonstrated that            
 these provisions do not result in what the sponsors want.                     
 Ms. Pittman noted that recent polling suggests that 74 to 80                  
 percent of adults support a parental right to be involved.                    
 However, when the adults become aware of the impact on minors who             
 have good reasons why they do not consult their parents, the public           
 shows a realistic view of differing family situations.  She pointed           
 out that the people on the teleconference are those that care about           
 minors and good family communication.  On the other hand, those               
 people who abuse their children are not testifying and those                  
 children are of concern.  She urged the protection of those                   
 children by rejecting this proposal.                                          
 Ms. Pittman suggested that efforts be geared towards those                    
 successful approaches to the prevention of adolescent pregnancy.              
 She noted the following approaches:  a combination of early                   
 childhood education, parental education, assess the comprehensive             
 adolescent health services, comprehensive family life and sex                 
 education, programs which teach male responsibility, abstinence               
 based programs, and after school programs, meaningful jobs,                   
 community service projects to keep adolescents actively involved.             
 Those are the areas in which work could be done to prevent                    
 pregnancy in the first place.                                                 
 Number 386                                                                    
 JAN DELAND, testifying from Anchorage, supported SB 105.  She                 
 stated that serious complications often result in abortions.  Often           
 adults are not fully informed about the risks and alternatives of             
 abortion, minors are at an even greater risk.  She commented that             
 there are many instances in which abortions performed on minors               
 have resulted in injury and death; often parents are not aware of             
 or involved with their child's health care decisions.  She noted              
 that most of the parents she had spoken with wanted to be involved            
 in the health care of their children.  She believed that the                  
 enforceability of this law should be left to the courts.  The                 
 legislature should pass SB 105 because it would be responsible to             
 do so.  Ms. Deland believed that abortionists and Planned                     
 Parenthood have a financial interest in promoting abortion and                
 allowing it to be as available as possible.  Planned Parenthood is            
 the largest abortion provider in the United States.  Abortion is a            
 billion dollar business.  In reference to Dr. Claire Vivier-Mines'            
 testimony, if the statistic that Dr. Claire Vivier-Mines stated,              
 the serious complications requiring hospitalization are one half of           
 one percent, is true Ms. Deland would still not want her daughter             
 to take that chance.                                                          
 Number 352                                                                    
 LISA PENALVER, Fairbanks Coalition for Choice, stated that SB 105             
 may decrease the number of teen abortions, however she questioned             
 the wisdom of forcing teens to have babies.  She indicated that               
 there seems to be more value being placed on the potential life of            
 the fetus as opposed to the life of the teen.  As previously                  
 pointed out, pregnancy poses greater and more serious and lasting             
 health and psychological risks than abortion.  She said that the              
 Alaska courts recognize that pregnancy has a permanent detrimental            
 impact on a woman's access to education and employment.  She posed            
 the following question:  "How is it in the state's interest to                
 force pregnancies on teens when the state will soon be denying                
 funding to these same teens and to their children?"  Alaska has the           
 second highest teen pregnancy rate in the country.                            
 Ms. Penalver commented that even the American Medical Association             
 (AMA), a fairly conservative group, opposes parental involvement              
 laws.  She stated that, according to AMA, a teen's desire to                  
 maintain secrecy about their pregnancy is one of the leading reason           
 for death by an illegal abortion.  According to the AMA, some                 
 minors would be physically and emotionally harmed if required to              
 involve their parents in the abortion decision.  She suggested that           
 providing adequate sex education, career oriented counseling and              
 job training, and providing women with an equitable pay would be              
 better manners in which to prevent pregnancy and abortion.  She               
 concluded by stating that women who feel that they can contribute             
 to society in more ways than procreating would be more able to                
 resist societal pressures to be sexually active.                              
 SENATOR LEMAN stated, in response to Ms. Penalver's comment, that             
 SB 105 does not force pregnancy on minors.  SB 105 provides a                 
 judicial by-pass for parental consent which makes existing parental           
 consent provisions enforceable.  LISA PENALVER indicated that                 
 facing the court system would be intimidating for a pregnant minor,           
 especially facing a male and informing him of her private sexual              
 experiences and the reasons why she does not want to consult her              
 family.  That is why many states with parental involvement                    
 legislation have increased pregnancy rates.                                   
 SENATOR LEMAN noted that the end result of such legislation is                
 reduced pregnancies and abortions.  LISA PENALVER requested that              
 information.  Senator Leman recommended that Ms. Penalver review              
 the Minnesota case which was a great success.  He pointed out that            
 SB 105 includes a provision for a guardian at litem and an                    
 attorney; the process is done in private and without cost.  The               
 judicial by-pass provision addresses the intimidation factor as               
 well as dealing with the teen in an expeditious manner.                       
 Number 294                                                                    
 RANDALL BURNS, Executive Director of the Alaska Civil Liberties               
 Union, pointed out that a pregnant women's right to choose between            
 childbirth and abortion was first established in 1973, Roe vs.                
 Wade.  In this country, all women including those under 18 are                
 entitled to a safe and legal abortion.  The requirement of some               
 sort of parental involvement or judicial by-pass for pregnant                 
 minors creates difficulty in exercising that right.  He informed              
 everyone that 80 percent of the more than 1 million teen                      
 pregnancies in the United States are unintended.  Some 40 percent             
 of pregnant teens choose abortion.                                            
 Mr. Burns seemed to agree that ideally a pregnant teen should be              
 able to discuss her pregnancy with her parents, obtain their love             
 and support in order to arrive at a decision about her future                 
 through family discussions.  The majority of teens do tell one                
 parent of their pregnancy, but some teens cannot tell their                   
 parents, often, for good reasons.  He stated that laws such as                
 SB 105 are unnecessary for stable and supportive families, and are            
 ineffective and cruel for unstable and troubled families.  He                 
 reiterated that such laws cannot transform abusive families into              
 supportive families, nor can they reduce the high rate of teen                
 pregnancy.  Such laws would merely add to the problems facing                 
 pregnant teens by creating delays which increase the risks of a               
 medical abortion and eliminate the option of abortion for many                
 minors.  ACLU opposed parental consent/notification laws because              
 such laws infringe upon a minor's constitutional rights and serve             
 no useful purpose.  He reiterated the legislative counsel's                   
 position that this legislation would probably be found                        
 unconstitutional under Alaska's Constitution due to the lack of a             
 compelling state need.                                                        
 SHARI PAUL, Vice President of the Juneau Coalition for Pro Choice,            
 stated that SB 105 is dangerous.  Law-makers should focus on                  
 providing minors with confidential information, reproductive health           
 services, and counseling programs.  She felt that would help                  
 eliminate teen pregnancy.  Prevention is the key.                             
 SENATOR LEMAN questioned if according to Ms. Paul's statement, the            
 22 states that enforce some type of parental involvement are                  
 dangerous states in which to live.  SHARI PAUL concluded that                 
 pregnant minors in rural areas who cannot speak with their families           
 are in danger from themselves as well as their parents.                       
 SENATOR LEMAN noted that minors in rural areas cannot get abortions           
 in those areas now.  SB 105 provides a judicial by-pass procedure             
 which would be available equally to those in rural or urban areas.            
 A pregnant teen in rural Alaska would have to travel to a place               
 with an abortionist where there would also be a court.  He did not            
 understand the increased danger Ms. Paul had indicated for pregnant           
 teens in rural areas.                                                         
 Number 211                                                                    
 SHARI PAUL referred the committee to the testimony of Randall                 
 Burns.  She believed that judicial by-pass would cause more delay             
 and time.  A minor needs to have time to work this out.  She                  
 emphasized that going to a stranger in a court is not the key.  The           
 time for a first trimester pregnancy is critical.                             
 SENATOR LEMAN indicated the danger of a teen going to an                      
 abortionist, a stranger, which would seem to parallel that of the             
 court appointed person.  SHARI PAUL pointed out that the                      
 abortionist would be a licensed person just like going to a dentist           
 that is a stranger.  Abortion should remain legal in order that               
 enough physicians remain properly trained for this procedure.                 
 SENATOR LEMAN asserted that the point of SB 105 is the judicial by-           
 pass provision.  He said that Ms. Paul had not given any evidence             
 supporting her comment that SB 105 is dangerous.  SHARI PAUL stated           
 that any legislation limiting a minor's right is dangerous.                   
 Number 178                                                                    
 JANINE REEP, Department of Law, stated that she was present to                
 inform the committee of the Administration's position.  Governor              
 Knowles is opposed to any restrictions regarding the access of                
 minors to abortion.  As a representative of the Department of Law,            
 she concluded that SB 105, if enacted, would be found                         
 unconstitutional by the Alaska courts.                                        
 SENATOR LEMAN was not surprised at Ms. Reep's position.  He was               
 disappointed, if the governor did send that message, that Governor            
 Knowles who wanted more parental involvement when minors deface               
 property would not also want parental involvement in such a serious           
 medical procedure.  Senator Leman stated that he did not know if              
 the governor would veto a bill with judicial by-pass.  He pointed             
 out that this legislation as designed had been found constitutional           
 by the United States Supreme Court.  He expressed the hope that               
 there would be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, if the Alaska             
 courts found the legislation unconstitutional.                                
 JANINE REEP recognized that SB 105 had been crafted carefully to be           
 federally constitutional.  The key is Alaska's constitution which             
 contains an explicit privacy right provision for all citizens of              
 this state.  She stressed that the U.S. Supreme Court would not               
 address that issue because it is a state issue.  The federal                  
 standards set forth a minimum, but the states can do more.  She               
 explained that the Alaskan cases regarding the right to privacy are           
 based upon the Alaska provision which generally construe a greater            
 right to privacy than the federal constitution.  This has happened            
 in other areas.  She noted that this statute would not sustain a              
 challenge in Alaska due to the fact that the California case                  
 presented state interest and objectives of the state which were               
 identical to the language in Alaska's provision.                              
 Number 106                                                                    
 SENATOR MILLER asked if the Department of Law would in good faith             
 defend a challenge on this legislation, if the legislation is                 
 passed.  JANINE REEP said that she was not prepared to answer that            
 question nor did she have the authority to answer it.  Ms. Reep               
 said that she would check with the department and return her                  
 SENATOR MILLER said that was a vague answer.  JANINE REEP clarified           
 that she was present to address her opinion regarding the                     
 constitutionality of SB 105.                                                  
 SENATOR MILLER emphasized that it should be a given that the                  
 Department of Law would defend the laws passed by the legislature.            
 He acknowledged that the cases could be lost, but the legislature             
 is part of the government too.                                                
 SENATOR SALO suggested that in order to ensure the desired effect             
 of the legislation, SB 105 could be accompanied by a constitutional           
 amendment to eliminate the right to privacy.  She asked if that               
 would work, if passed by the voters.  JANINE REEP stated that the             
 main barrier to this legislation is the constitutional right to               
 privacy.  Ms. Reep noted the possibility of an equal protection               
 issue in SB 105; pregnant minors being treated differently.                   
 Pregnant minors are entitled to obtain medical care and treatment             
 without parental consent.  The right to have an abortion, medical             
 care, would be eliminated under the existing statute and SB 105.              
 SENATOR SALO asked if Ms. Reep's statement regarding equal                    
 protection drew a comparison between pregnant 19 year olds and                
 pregnant 17 year olds.  JANINE REEP said no.  Ms. Reep explained              
 that it would refer to persons in similar situations, pregnant                
 teens, and how they were treated differently from each other.                 
 Under the existing statute, parental consent is not required for              
 conditions relating to pregnancy; but parental consent for an                 
 abortion would be needed, which is a medical procedure related to             
 SENATOR ELLIS clarified that there is a difference in reproductive            
 health services.                                                              
 SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to possible recommendations to revise               
 SB 105 to ensure its constitutionality under the Alaska Supreme               
 Court.  JANINE REEP explained that the legal standard requires                
 compelling state interest to invade the privacy of a minor.  The              
 compelling state interest could probably be shown as in the                   
 California case.  The legislation must then be a close and                    
 substantial means of furthering that end.  In the California case,            
 the judicial by-pass and parental consent provisions were found to            
 not protect the minor, the minor's health, nor foster the family's            
 social unit.                                                                  
 TAPE 95-20, SIDE A                                                            
 Ms. Reep concluded that without that constitutional amendment there           
 would not be a problem.                                                       
 SENATOR LEMAN suggested that Ms. Reep pass on any information that            
 would help improve the possibility of gubernatorial approval or               
 passage in the court system of SB 105.  JANINE REEP agreed.                   
 Number 016                                                                    
 SENATOR LEMAN moved that SB 105 be moved out of committee with                
 individual recommendations.  Senators Ellis and Salo objected.                
 SENATOR SALO stated that SB 105 is poor legislation that should not           
 go forth because it is probably unconstitutional, endangers                   
 pregnant teens, and good parent-child relationships cannot be                 
 legislated.  She related a conversation in which her daughter noted           
 that a "Donna Reed" type family would already have parental                   
 involvement.  She reiterated that SB 105 is poor legislation that             
 should not be moved out of the HESS committee.  She stated that she           
 strongly objected to SB 105.                                                  
 SENATOR ELLIS agreed with Senator Salo.  He discussed a documentary           
 in which a family, a seemingly perfect family, helped with the                
 passage of a parental involvement law in another state.  The young            
 woman in the documentary did not want to destroy that perfect                 
 family and obtained an illegal abortion from an unlicensed person.            
 The young woman died as a result.  The family completely reversed             
 their opinion.  He said that documentary had colored his opinion of           
 this subject, parental consent or notification requirements are               
 SENATOR LEMAN suggested that committee members review the packets             
 which contain stories of abortions performed on minors whose                  
 parents did not know, some of these minors died and others became             
 incapacitated.  There are many tragic stories.  In regard to                  
 Senator Salo's comment, Senator Leman asserted that SB 105 is well            
 crafted and has withstood a supreme court scrutiny.  He disagreed             
 with the two women attorneys who had testified.  He emphasized that           
 his opinion was as worthy as their opinions.  This legislation is             
 supported by a cross-section of mainstream Alaskans.  In                      
 conclusion, he supported SB 105 and urged members to discharge                
 SB 105.                                                                       
 Upon a roll call vote, Senators Leman, Miller, and Green voted                
 "Yea" while Senators Ellis and Salo voted "Nay."  The motion                  
 carried and SB 105 was passed out of committee with individual                
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that SB 98 would be before the committee             
 at the next two meetings on Friday and Saturday.                              
 There being no further business before the committee, the meeting             
 adjourned at 10:45 a.m.                                                       

Document Name Date/Time Subjects