Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/09/2001 04:43 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
April 9, 2001
4:43 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chair
Senator Dave Donley, Vice Chair
Senator John Cowdery
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Johnny Ellis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR SS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 13(CRA)
"An Act relating to municipal service areas and providing for voter
approval of the formation, alteration, or abolishment of certain
service areas."
MOVED SCS CSSSHB 13 (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 22
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the retention elections for justices of the Alaska
supreme court and judges of the superior court.
MOVED CSSJR 22 (JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 161
"An Act relating to the withholding of salary of justices, judges,
and magistrates; relating to requiring prompt decisions by
justices, judges, and magistrates; and relating to judicial
retention elections for judicial officers."
HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(HES)
"An Act relating to information and services available to pregnant
women and other persons; and ensuring informed consent before an
abortion may be performed, except in cases of medical emergency."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 166
"An Act relating to the time of filling by appointment a vacancy in
the office of United States senator."
MOVED SB 166 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 13 - See Community and Regional Affairs minutes dated 3/19/01
and Judiciary minutes dated 4/2/01.
SJR 22 - See Judiciary minutes 4/2/01.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Patricia Swenson
Staff aid to Representative Bunde
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 13
Ms. Stephanie Cole, Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2084
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SJR 22
Ms. Sandra Altland
Staff aid to Senator Ward
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 91
Dr. Bob Johnson
PO Box 945
Kodiak, Alaska 99615-0945
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 91
Ms. Karen VosBurgh
Alaska Right to Life
PO Box 1847
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 91
Ms. Christina Talbott
535 Harris Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 91
Ms. Karen Pearson, Director
Division of Public Health
Department of Health &
Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 91
Ms. Jennifer Rudinger, Executive Director
Alaska Civil Liberties
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Deferred testimony on SB 91 to a later date.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-16, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting
to order at 4:43 p.m. Senator Donley, Senator Cowdery, and
Chairman Taylor were present. Senator Therriault arrived at 4:44
p.m. Chairman Taylor announced the first order of business would
be HB 13.
HB 13-SERVICE AREAS: VOTER APPROVAL/TAX ZONES
SENATOR DONLEY moved to adopt SCS CSSSHB 13 as the working draft
for the committee. There being no objection, SCS CSSSHB 13 was
adopted.
MS. PATTY SWENSON, staff to Representative Bunde, said the only
change in the SCS to CSHB 13 was on page 2, lines 27 through 28.
The change says that taxes levied within a differential tax zone
may only be used for the services provided in that tax zone.
During the last judiciary meeting there was a discussion about
whether a differential service area could levy a one mill tax for a
specific purpose that may only cost one quarter mill with the
difference being used in another part of the tax zone. This
version of HB 13 would prevent that from happening.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he had worked with Representative Bunde in
resolving this problem and was happy with the outcome.
SENATOR DONLEY moved SCS CSSSHB 13 from committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, SCS CSSSHB 13 (JUD)
moved from committee.
SJR 22-CONST. AM: JUDICIAL OFFICERS' TERMS
SENATOR DONLEY said the CS for SJR 22 would change judiciary terms
in the constitution to six years for a supreme court justice and
four years for a superior court judge.
SENATOR DONLEY moved to adopt CSSJR 22 (JUD). There being no
objection, CSSJR 22 (JUD) was adopted as the working draft for the
committee.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that Ms. Stephanie Cole from the Alaska Court
System was available for testimony as well as Mr. Bill Cotton from
the Alaska Judicial Council. There were no questions for either
person.
SENATOR DONLEY moved CSSJR 22 (JUD) from committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, CSSJR 22 (JUD) moved
from committee.
SB 161-NO PAY FOR JUDGES UNTIL DECISION
SENATOR DONLEY said existing law has been interpreted by the
judiciary to mean that the six month existing provision for
conferring on judicial decisions only applies to individual
justices. So that once an individual justice produces a
preliminary opinion for circulation among other members of the
court, the six month provision has been complied with but an
endless amount of time can go on from that time. SB 161 would
create a deadline for final action by an appellate court,
shortening the six month time frame to four months for individual
justices and judges. SB 161 would also require an explanation in
the voter's guide of why a judicial officer had not received a
salary warrant.
MS. STEPHANIE COLE, Administive Director, Alaska Court System, said
it was clear that the purpose of SB 161 was to encourage timeliness
and eliminate unnecessary delay. Ms. Cole said that Chief Justice
Fabe wanted the committee to know that she shared the feeling that
timeliness issues needed to be addressed and that the court was
addressing them. A year ago the court adopted trial court time
standards and is now making active efforts to clean up its data to
make sure it knows the current situation of its cases, to assess
situations, and to develop new monitoring and procedural processes
to shorten time delays. Last fall all judges went through training
on case management and control technique, and the court is now
developing a mentoring program so that when a new judge comes to
the bench someone will help them with case management techniques.
Appellate courts would also be addressing delay, and the supreme
court has adopted time standards and new procedures for flagging
and monitoring cases. Next year Chief Justice Fabe will be
reporting to the legislature on the supreme court's progress in
speeding up its cases. She said it was easier to apply new
procedures to new cases and the court would have to figure out a
way to handle older cases. Now, every case over a year old is
being flagged and brought up at every conference to see if it can
be moved through more quickly.
MS. COLE urged that SB 161 not move forward because the imposition
of time frames would have a substantial fiscal impact on the court
system. In the court's research on SB 161 it looked at other
states with statutes similar to Alaska - Nevada, Montana, and
Wisconsin, and in all three states these statutes were found to be
unconstitutional. Ms. Cole submitted copies of those cases to the
committee. The cases found that those types of statutory
provisions are unconstitutional because they violate separation of
powers and because they concern the efficient and effective
functioning of a court system, which is a matter of court
administration within the exclusive authority of the judicial
branch of government. The cases also found that laws like those
violate the constitutional prohibition against diminishing a
judicial officers salary while in office and are also an
impermissible impairment of contract. It was clear from existing
case law that if a challenge were to be mounted to either the
existing statute or the proposed revised statute it would fail.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the same would hold true for the
withholding of a salary warrant on a superior or district court
judge if they were to violate the existing statute.
MS. COLE responded yes, upon challenge.
Number 790
MS. COLE said the appellate court had proposed time standards
without penalty provisions attached and that salary warrants do not
stop if the time standards are not met. Time standards are
statistical time standards rather than individual case reporting.
MS. COLE said there was also a provision in SB 161 saying an
appellate judge or justice would not receive a paycheck if there
were any matters pending before the court for more than eight
months, regardless of whether the case had been assigned to that
judge. The court system felt this was a fundamental fairness and
logic issue because a judge or justice could be performing
diligently, efficiently, and in a timely manner and that person
could still be deprived of a paycheck. There are reasons a case
lingers in the supreme court longer than the time assigned to a
particular justice. For example, in the last seven years, four of
the five justices turned over, and in each of those circumstances
the caseload was reassigned to another justice. If a case
circulates and there is a dissenting opinion, it is not held
against the author or justice because there are many reasons why a
case could last longer. She said most of the cases before the
court now have been there less than a year.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how long a judge takes on an appeal issue.
MS. COLE said at the appellate level, six months is the outside
time after an oral argument is assigned to a judge, and if there
has been no oral argument the case is conferenced and assigned to a
judge. From that time a judge or justice has a six month period.
SENATOR COWDERY asked what the shortest time was.
MS. COLE replied there are many expedited matters that go through
the courts with the shortest time being a matter of days or weeks -
children's proceedings and domestic cases are expedited. All cases
do not come up against the six month time period but the majority
of cases are decided within that time period, and 64 percent of the
supreme court decisions go through within the eight month time
frame.
MS. COLE said that although the court system felt SB 161 was
unconstitutional, with reference to the reduction in time, it has
provided a fiscal note in conformance with statutory provisions.
The six month rule has been in conformance since statehood and the
legislature has given the courts sufficient funding to allow trial
court judges to make decisions within six months. Judges have been
able to meet current deadlines but she said it was unrealistic to
think that judges would be able to meet such radically shortened
deadlines without additional resources. SB 161 has a strict
liability rule, no excuses are allowed for such things as illness
or the unexpected leave of a law clerk. Therefore, if a case were
not decided within the six month referral, a judge would lose a
paycheck, and SB 161 is changing that time to four months.
SENATOR DONLEY injected that a case could be reassigned to another
judge.
MS. COLE said a case could be reassigned but that may or may not be
an efficient way to handle the case depending on its complexity.
MS. COLE noted that Alaska's supreme court is not a "cert."
[Certiorari] court and has no control over the number of cases
before it. If the supreme court were to meet an eight month time
frame for all cases, it would have to have some control of the
cases that came to it. In the fiscal note narrative, there is
comparative information about the productivity of Alaska's supreme
court versus the supreme courts of California, Oregon, and
Washington, which are also "cert." courts. In 1999, California's
seven supreme court justices authored an average of 13 opinions
apiece, Oregon's seven justices authored 14 opinions apiece, and
Washington's nine justices each authored approximately 16 opinions.
Alaska's supreme court has five justices, and last year out of 153
cases there were approximately 31 opinions per justice. Each
opinion averaged 20 pages and that was in addition to petition work
and other work that needed to be done.
MS. COLE said that currently the supreme court is issuing decisions
within the eight month period under SB 161 in approximately 64
percent of the time. It is the court's assessment that the eight
month time in SB 161 could not be met unless the supreme court
became a cert. court by the creation of an intermediate civil court
of appeals. The criminal court of appeals has three members
sharing a caseload and it is currently issuing decisions within the
eight month period approximately 71 percent of the time. While it
is possible the court of appeals could not meet the eight month
deadline without the infusion of additional judicial resources, the
fiscal note reflects the request of two additional staff people to
help meet deadlines. With reference to trial courts, there is a
lot of variation around the state with regard to volume and
complexity. The fiscal note looks to the primary resource that a
judge has to help him or her decide cases - law clerks. There are
certain superior court judges that do not have that primary
resource and the fiscal note adds a full time law clerk in Barrow,
Kotzebue, and Dillingham. It also adds judicial resources in the
locations that have the heaviest caseloads or the highest trial
rates, which is Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer, and Bethel.
MS. COLE said Section 2 has a very complex requirement for
information and it requires the administrative court director to
report that information to the lieutenant governor. The court had
no problem with the first part of Section 2 - salary warrant
information, which is exception reporting, but the second part of
the information requires the administrative director to track, age,
and count every decision a judge makes. Ms. Cole reads that
language to mean that every time a judge issues an order, whether
it is signing a stipulation for continuance, signing a reference
from a master, or whatever a judge does, would have to be reported.
The current system could not track all that information, but the
report at the end of the year would say, "this judge made 5,000
decisions in zero to four months and one decision in four to eight
months, or whatever the time frame is." She said this might give
some information on how busy judges are, but she was not sure the
information could be collected.
MS. COLE noted that some of the current language was very general
such as, "no matter referred to the justice for opinion or decision
has been uncompleted or undecided by the justice for a period of
more than six months." SB 161 is much more descriptive in terms of
what milestones are required.
SENATOR DONLEY asked her to follow up on her last point.
MS. COLE said that right now, cases in which an oral argument has
not been requested are treated exactly the same as cases in which
an oral argument has been requested, and they would be conferenced
on the same date. When the last responsive pleading comes in, the
law clerk does a work up and it is then circulated. At the
conference on the case, the case is assigned and it is decided who
is to write the opinion.
Number 1355
SENATOR DONLEY asked why a shorter period of time would be a
problem.
MS. COLE replied that going from eight months to four months
severely shortens the time periods, and any period of time matters.
SENATOR DONLEY clarified that it was not the amount of time that
mattered, but that when a justice is already under a restraint,
every day counts.
MS. COLE said that was correct.
SENATOR DONLEY asked about fairness and equity for the citizens of
Alaska going through the judicial process. He said there was one
case that had not been decided in three years, and he asked if
there was a list for cases 18 months to 2 years old.
MS. COLE said there are currently 19 cases before the court that
are more than one year old. There are 465 cases currently before
the court and of those, three are more than two years old. Of the
465 cases, approximately 220 are fully briefed and awaiting a
decision. Of the 220 cases, 19 are one year old.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if that number was from oral argument.
MS. COLE said the 220 were dated from the date of oral argument.
SENATOR DONLEY asked about fairness to the citizens of Alaska who
have waited over three years for a decision. He thought this was
blatant unfairness to the people who depend on the judiciary for a
resolution of conflicts in a civilized society.
Number 1497
MS. COLE said the court system was totally committed to working on
timeliness and this could be seen from what the courts have done
and are planning to do. She said when looking at the number of
cases going through the court, there are three cases over two years
old, which is an extremely small percentage, but that is scant
comfort for the litigants in those three cases and the court system
is doing everything it can to make sure it does not happen in the
future.
SENATOR DONLEY said he would be interested in exploring an
extension for the instances when a new judge comes to the court and
is assigned to a case he or she has not heard the oral argument
for. He asked how the court handled this type of delay problem.
MS. COLE said this was a difficult situation to deal with.
Sometimes a justice will stay on after he or she retires to handle
their caseload, but they cannot always stay until that is
accomplished. She said that much of what the supreme court does is
shrouded in confidentiality and it cannot be seen when
reassignments occur or when a case is waiting for a dissent to be
written. Many factors can play into the delay of an older case and
when those cases come out some have lengthy dissents.
SENATOR DONLEY asked how the court handles the problem of a new
justice being empanelled who had not been present for the oral
argument. Do they recuse themselves from a decision or do they
vote?
MS. COLE said she believed they listen to a tape of the oral
argument.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if the policy was to allow them to vote in
these cases.
MS. COLE said she believed that was the case but she was not
certain. She said she would find out if there were a written
policy on this issue.
Number 1676
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if there was allowance for legislative
direction or penalty with regard to payment in these cases.
MS. COLE said no. The cases were clear that any infringement in
this area was impermissible.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he would like to read through the cases to
see how they would apply to Alaska.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if the court system was opposed to the
information required in Section 1 being included in the voter's
guide.
MS. COLE said the court system takes no position on that.
Number 1817
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he had often wondered if the existing statute
was unconstitutional.
I wonder why we have all abided by it, those of us that
are constrained under it for so long. My only thought on
that is that it might be that no judge has wished to
bring suit for failure to get out a decision and having
his paycheck or her paycheck withheld, and challenge the
constitutionality of the right of the legislature to do
that. I'm not sure how each of these cases were probably
brought by people who were not facing a retention
election themselves. But that is fascinating and I know
there have been constitutional conflicts between
legislatures and courts. In fact we've just come from
the floor where we had a pretty significant debate about
what our supreme court could order commissioners to do.
We've had, as you know, a recent decision where we have a
superior court judge threatening to hold the commissioner
of health and social services in contempt of court should
she not spend and appropriate money on a subject that she
had no money to spend or appropriate because the
legislature had not given her any funding for that. So
she is between a very difficult rock and a hard place and
the administration choose to support her and her concepts
rather than to support the legislature and what policy it
has set down. So we find ourselves in this very
difficult position in the HESS budget because of that. I
know that in the state of Colorado the state had failed
to grant any increase in pay to the judges for several
years and so the supreme court of the state of Colorado
issued an order to the treasurer of the state of Colorado
ordering him to increase pay to the judges. When he
refused to do so they threatened to hold him in contempt
of court, at which point this constitutional crisis had
built to a sufficient place that the Colorado legislature
sat down with the court and they figured out where we go
from here and they eventually got their raises. I, like
Senator Therriault and the rest of the committee, don't
wish to start some sort of constitutional confrontation,
and we appreciate the good efforts of the Chief Justice
and Chief Justice Matthews was also working on the same
scheme. My fear is though, it's like a former justice
once told me about one of the employees, his suggestion
was the only reason that fellow was still with us, is he
hasn't made three of us mad all at the same time. I
think the same may prevail when it comes to this rule.
It's going to take a unanimous court probably to
establish that guideline or that rule and I think each of
us wonders what will provide the teeth to have that rule
or that policy carried out within the court.
SENATOR DONLEY thanked Ms. Cole for her thoughtful testimony.
SENATOR DONLEY proposed the committee work on a CS that maintains
the existing six month standard with an exception provision for the
arrival of a new justice. He said he would like written guidelines
on how justices are allowed to vote, whether they are allowed to
vote without hearing the oral argument. He said Section 2 needed
to redefine orders, which would provide a six month initial
decision.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said SB 161 would be held in committee until a
better working document was established.
Number 2053
SB 91-ABORTION: INFORMED CONSENT; INFORMATION
MS. SANDRA ALTLAND, staff to Senator Ward, noted that there are two
main parts to informed consent. First, the Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS) would be required to develop a pamphlet
that would be available to the public. The pamphlet would consist
of factual and nonbiased information that talked about pregnancy
and abortion alternatives available throughout the state. Second,
SB 91 asks that the current signed consent requirements be changed
from regulation to statute and that definite points be covered with
pregnant women during informed consent.
MS. ALTLAND said it is important for women to have abortion
information before them so they can make the best decision, and
DHSS is to compile a pamphlet and distribute it, free of charge, to
anyone who wants it. The pamphlet would discuss fetal development
and it would use the term "unborn child." The words unborn child
need to be in the pamphlet because the pamphlet would be written
for people who want to use terms such as baby or unborn child - the
term fetal development dehumanizes the reality of pregnancy.
MS. ALTLAND said that page 2, line 28 talks about abortion
procedures, medical risks, and psychological effects. Often the
psychological effects do not surface until years later and this
connection is not made at the time. She said this information
needed to be up front and in a manner that speaks to the woman
going through this situation, telling them there are chances of
severe medical risk. The information should be available anyplace
a pregnant woman would be, such as public hospitals, clinics, and
health facilities throughout the state and it should also be
available if an administrator in a private hospital would like it.
MS. ALTLAND said SB 91 asks doctors to take time in giving the
necessary information to women who are trying to make a decision
about abortion, and to also give them other alternatives. The bill
also clarifies what informed consent is, and the pamphlet would
have pictures of fetal development, showing the unborn child at
different stages.
Number 2354
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if SB 91 substantially modified current
regulations.
MS. ALTLAND noted that laying out the different points of informed
consent would help unify the information that had been given. She
said some doctors are very good at providing information, but
others do not take the time for good informed consent.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if SB 91 was just copying the regulation
language into statute.
MS. ALTLAND was not sure of the answer.
Number 2243
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that it was not his intention to move SB 91
from committee at this time because there had not been adequate
notice of the meeting or adequate time for testimony.
DR. BOB JOHNSON, testifying via teleconference from Kodiak, said he
has practiced medicine in Alaska from 1955 to 1994 when he retired.
He said he performed abortions during that time and was the only
physician in Kodiak that did. He said he had faxed the committee
an article he wrote several years ago on abortion. He opposed SB
91 as an unnecessary impediment to the free exercise of choice,
which had been a legal right of women since Roe versus Wade.
Administratively there are requirements in place for reporting
abortions, the stage of gestation, reasons for the abortion, and
complications. The matter of consent is reiterated many times in
all areas of medical care and no physician would fail to obtain a
signed consent. A woman has a right to ask her physician any
question and a physician has the obligation to answer that question
to the best of his or her ability. He said there was no need to
designate exactly what needed to be asked, particularly since it
often mitigated against treating each patient as an individual with
individual needs. Dr. Johnson felt that SB 91 was redundant and
its aim was to control individuals and impose what some people
think should be required in order for women to exercise their
choice.
MR. JOHNSON said if the legislature must pass SB 91, he would
suggest that members listen to the suggestions of the Alaska Civil
Liberties Union and consider taking out the emotionally charged
words "unborn child." He said someone who was not in favor of
abortions had obviously put this into the bill, and the proper
medical term was fetus, which was not an emotionally disruptive
term.
MR. JOHNSON commented that the residency requirement of 30 days
should be eliminated. He said he hoped committee members would
read the article he had sent.
Number 2074
MS. KAREN VOS BURGH, Executive Director for Alaska Right to Life,
said SB 91 is severely needed. Many times doctors do not give
patients full information and sometimes the information not very
factual. She had talked with many women who say they were not
given the right information therefore it should be required.
Abortionists do not want the baby referred to as baby, they want it
referred to as fetus - the "preborn baby" is sometimes referred to
as pregnancy tissue or "just a bunch of cells" or a product of
conception. Virtually nothing is being done by the abortion
industry or the general press to warn women who are considering
abortion about its high rate of risk. Several states have
implemented right to know laws and Alaska should follow suit.
There are over 100 potential complications associated with abortion
and there are many studies that prove this. The abortionists say
there is no connection between breast cancer and abortion but
several studies have proven otherwise. Legislators in 11 states
are pushing for pro-life laws requiring abortion practitioners to
tell women that an abortion could raise their risk of breast
cancer. This is not only an abortion issue but also a health
issue. She said the medical establishment is trying to cover up
the link between abortion and breast cancer and that someday this
would be a public relations fiasco for them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked her, and said time was running short but SB
91 would be heard again if she wanted to testify at the next
hearing.
Number 1792
MS. CHRISTINA TALBOTT, speaking on her own behalf, said she had a
few concerns regarding the language of SB 91. On page 2, line 10
the language says, "(4) states that a person who coerces a woman to
undergo an abortion may be prosecuted for a felony offense under AS
11.41.530." She said in the interest of providing objective and
nonjudgmental language it might make more sense to change the
language to: "coercing women into a decision regarding an abortion"
- just to be more inclusive. She said (5) is redundant because law
already requires informed consent. On page 3, line 16 the language
reads, "(1) 'fertilization' means the fusion of a human
spermatozoon with a human ovum," but she said the date of
occurrence is unclear. She objected to the language on page 2,
lines 18 and 19 defining "gestational age" as the age of the unborn
child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period
of a pregnant woman. She said this was not possible. Women
ovulate between one and one half weeks after their period has
finished and if the age of the unborn child is counted from that
date, two or three weeks would be added to the age of the child,
which would be a concern because lines 19 through 27 on page 2 says
the pamphlet is to describe the fetal development of the typical
unborn child at two week gestational increments, which would effect
where the baby was and where the woman reading the pamphlet felt
their child had developed. She said in Section 1, (7) the language
that says, "relevant information about the possibility of an unborn
child's survival at the various gestational ages" is unclear and
should be removed from SB 91 or defined further. She also objected
to the term "unborn child" because the word fetus is a commonly
known term, which is an objective nonbiased scientific term.
Number 1656
MS. KAREN PEARSON, Director of the Division of Public Health for
the Department of Health and Social Service (DHSS), said the
department is in agreement that all women seeking a pregnancy
termination should be fully informed prior to termination. DHSS is
concerned about the inclusion requirements for the pamphlet though.
SB 91 says that the names of all providers and agencies are to be
in a pamphlet and their services are to be included, and all of
this is to be geographically indexed. There are more than 200
communities in Alaska and if one pamphlet were assembled that lists
all the information required by SB 91, it would be very large. The
pamphlet would also be out of date by the time it is printed
because Alaska has many providers that come and go. DHSS is
concerned that what it is being requested might not accomplish what
the sponsor intended, which is information in a complete and
useable form. The pamphlet would also be a big expense for the
department because it would take someone working full time to keep
up with all the changes, in all the communities.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that under current statute AS 18.05.035 the
department was mandated to prepare information regarding planned
parenthood and to place that information in public hospitals. He
asked how the existing requirements would be any different than
what would be required by SB 91.
MS. PEARSON said existing statute does not specify that the
information be all in one document or what the content should be.
The statute tells the department to put out information related to
planned parenthood but it does not say what the format or content
should be.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the problem was in the geographical
indexing.
MS. PEARSON said that was exactly right. SB 91 would require a
list for every service agency, every provider, in every community
with what services they provide and how to access them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that Ms. Jennifer Rudinger was on line and the
committee had received her comments but because of a lack of time,
SB 91 would be held in committee and taken up at a later date. He
said he would have his staff contact her in advance of the next
meeting so she could testify then.
MS. JENNIFER RUDINGER, Alaska Civil Liberties, said she had a
statement from Dr. Jan Whitefield in Anchorage and would fax it to
the committee.
Number 1419
SB 166-APPOINTMENT OF US SENATORS
SENATOR DONLEY said SB 166 was an eleven word change to existing
statute, which provides a five day waiting period in which a
governor would be able to fill a vacancy for the United States
Senate. SB 166 would allow the Alaska public to comment on who
might be best suited to represent them in the United States Senate
in the unlikely event of a vacancy occurring. As the statute
currently stands, there is no provision for public comment.
SENATOR DONLEY moved SB 166 from committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, SB 166 moved from
committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|