04/16/2021 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR4 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 16, 2021
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lora Reinbold, Chair
Senator Mike Shower, Vice Chair (via Teams)
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Peter Micciche
Representative Kevin McCabe
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to abortion.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 4
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: ABORTION/FUNDING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) HUGHES
01/22/21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/21
01/22/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/21 (S) HSS, JUD, FIN
03/16/21 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/16/21 (S) Heard & Held
03/16/21 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/23/21 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/23/21 (S) Moved SJR 4 Out of Committee
03/23/21 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/24/21 (S) HSS RPT 3DP 1DNP 1NR
03/24/21 (S) DP: WILSON, COSTELLO, HUGHES
03/24/21 (S) DNP: BEGICH
03/24/21 (S) NR: REINBOLD
04/16/21 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
LOREN LEMAN, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on SJR 4.
JIM MINNERY, Executive Director
Alaska Family Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on SJR 4.
BOB BIRD, Chair
Alaska Independence Party
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on SJR 4.
LISA HART, Staff
Senator Shelley Hughes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint on SJR 4.
WINDY PERKINS, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 4.
MORGAN LIM, Government Relations Manager
Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates - Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
MARY ELIZABETH KEHRHAHN-STARK, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4 based on
Alaskans' constitutional right to privacy.
PATRICK MARTIN, President
Alaska Right to Life
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of equal justice to all
from the moment of conception until natural death, which is not
present in SJR 4.
ROBIN SMITH, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4 to protect
a women's right to privacy.
LARRY CLEMENT, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 4 because life
begins at conception.
JULIE SMYTH, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
KASEY CAFORT, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
MIKE COONS, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 4.
KATELYN AVERY, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
JAN CAROLYN HARDY, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4 to protect
individual rights.
KAREN BAKER, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
RILEY CHIEN, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4 to preserve
individual rights.
DAWN DULEBOHN, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
KATIE BOTZ, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 4 because life
begins at conception.
LYNETTE PHAM, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
LISA GENTEMANN, representing self
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 4.
JENNIFER EUBANK, representing self
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
SERENE O'HARA-OLLEY, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4 to protect
individual rights and freedoms.
HAL GAGE, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
KATHERINE LYLE, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
PAMELA SAMASH, representing self
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 4.
DIANA REDWOOD, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
KEVIN THOMAS, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 4.
BILL MOSER, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
MOIRA PYHALA, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
HEIDI FROST, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
SARAH GROCOTT, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
BERNIE HOFFMAN, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 4.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:43 PM
CHAIR LORA REINBOLD called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Myers, Kiehl, Hughes, Shower (via Teams),
and Chair Reinbold.
SJR 4-CONST. AM: ABORTION/FUNDING
1:34:28 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD announced the consideration of SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 4, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the State of Alaska relating to abortion.
[This was the first hearing on SJR 4.]
1:36:01 PM
SENATOR HUGHES explained that SJR 4 proposes an amendment to the
Alaska State Constitution to restore to voters and the
legislature the power to set public policy related to saving the
unborn. She said that this power was usurped in recent decades
by a series of court decisions. Most prominently in 1973, Roe v.
Wade declared a right to an abortion, which is an alleged right
in her view. However, the US Supreme Court has allowed states to
impose certain restrictions, which has saved many babies. For
example, some states require parental involvement prior to an
abortion being performed on a minor, restricting public funds
for abortions, and disallowing certain procedures, including
partial-birth abortions.
SENATOR HUGHES related that the Alaska Supreme Court in Valley
Hospital Association, Inc. v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice, [948
P.2d 963 (Alaska 1997)] found that the Alaska Constitution
contained a previously unknown "right to abortion." She offered
her belief that the court erred in its decision. The word
"abortion" is not found anywhere in the Alaska Constitution, nor
is there a shred of evidence that the delegates to the Alaska
Constitutional Convention met to protect abortions. When the
Alaska Constitution was drafted, abortion was illegal throughout
the US. She highlighted that the right to privacy has been used
to strike down laws that the Alaska legislature has passed.
However, when the Alaska Constitution was drafted, the right to
privacy became an issue because there were grave concerns about
data mining when computer informational systems were just
starting up. She stated that the Constitutional Convention
delegates had specific language drafted related to surveillance
and data mining but ultimately allowed the legislature to make
those decisions.
1:39:40 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said that in the Valley Hospital Association,
Inc. v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice, the Alaska Supreme Court
declared that the judicially-manufactured right to abortion
protects abortion. The court did so in a very broad manner. She
said the US Supreme Court justices ruled, in her view
erroneously. The result is that laws that could have saved
unborn babies in Alaska were found invalid even though similar
laws in other states withstood challenges.
SENATOR HUGHES summarized that Alaska Supreme Court rulings have
demonstrated that other states' laws are not possible in Alaska.
For example, in Alaska, a girl as young as 13 could be brought
to an abortion clinic by an older boyfriend without any parental
knowledge or involvement. The only reason for this deplorable
situation is that the Alaska Supreme Court demands it, she said.
Alaska voters, the legislature, and all of Alaska governors for
the last 18 years have supported parental involvement. She said
that the decisions of four unelected Alaska Supreme Court
justices not supporting the right of parental involvement in
abortion decisions is an outrage. This needs to be fixed, she
said. SJR 4 would not set policy, but it will determine who will
set it. It would empower elected officials acting directly
through the initiative process to set consistent policy with
Alaskan values. Other states have passed constitutional
amendments that protect the rights of voters and elected
officials to determine abortion policy. She offered her belief
that it is time for Alaska to do the same.
CHAIR REINBOLD turned to invited testimony.
1:42:32 PM
LOREN LEMAN, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated he
represented parts of west, downtown and northwest Anchorage
during his 14 years of legislative service. He said he also
served as Lieutenant Governor for four years. He offered his
support for SJR 4 as an important step to restore to the people
of Alaska and the legislature the ability to set policy on
abortion. As Senator Hughes stated, that authority has been
usurped for more than two decades by Alaska courts, he said.
MR. LEMAN related his 24-year journey defending the rights of
parents to be involved in the lives of their minor daughters. He
said:
Although this effort has been disrupted and delayed by
what I consider to be misrepresentation of our state
constitution by the courts, I'm not defeated, and I'm
not giving up. In 1997, I sponsored SB 24 to enable
the state to enforce a law on the books since 1970
that required a doctor to obtain parental consent
before performing an abortion on a girl under 18 years
of age in Alaska.
MR. LEMAN related that an opinion issued by then-Attorney
General Avrum Gross said that the law was unenforceable because
a US Supreme Court ruling required that parental involvement
laws allow minors to seek a waiver in court. This is commonly
known as a judicial bypass. However, he said the state has
ignored enforcing the parental consent law.
1:43:59 PM
MR. LEMAN said he introduced a bill to add a judicial bypass
provision in full compliance with the rulings of the US Supreme
Court. At the time, that court had responded to several state
bills with the judicial bypass. The US Supreme Court had most
recently issued a 9-0 decision in a case from Montana, saying in
effect not to send the court any more of these cases because the
court has already ruled that it approves parental involvement
statutes with these provisions. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
agreed, he said. Senate Bill 24 passed the legislature with
supermajority support, enough to override a veto from then-
Governor Tony Knowles. The Parental Consent Act was tied up in
court for 10 long years. He said he was extremely disappointed
when the Alaska Supreme Court struck it down in a 3 to 2
decision. In the majority opinion, Justice Dana Fabe stated in
clear language that a less restrictive law, such as requiring
only parental notification, would be acceptable.
MR. LEMAN said that a bill was introduced in the legislature to
do this, but it was not advanced in the legislature. He
subsequently joined with two other Alaskans to sponsor a voter
initiative to pass a law requiring parental notice. In 2010 more
than 56 percent of Alaskan voters, over 90,000 voters, approved
Ballot Measure 2.
1:47:40 PM
MR. LEMAN offered his view that the Alaska Supreme Court
decisions are not made by following the law but by personal
ideology. He characterized that as a big problem. Legislators
make public policy decisions influenced by their values, life
experiences and the people who elected them. Legislators earn
that right by winning an election, but unelected judges have not
earned that right. He said when judges exceed their authority,
they deserve an aggressive response.
MR. LEMAN said this resolution by itself does not change
abortion law. Instead, it restores to elected leaders and the
people of Alaska the proper role of setting abortion policy.
Once passed by the legislature and the voters of Alaska, it will
invite considerably more discussion on what type of protections
Alaska wants for parents and their children. He said he hoped to
participate in that discussion.
1:50:00 PM
JIM MINNERY, Executive Director, Alaska Family Council,
Anchorage, Alaska, stated he is a lifelong Alaskan and the
council is a pro-family policy group. He offered his view that
SJR 4 is a separation of powers issue as much as it is an
abortion issue. He opined that the Alaska Supreme Court has
abused its authority in claiming that the Alaska Constitution
contains an inherent right to abortion at taxpayer expense.
1:51:30 PM
MR. MINNERY related other states' actions on abortion rights
include passing amendments in some of the strongest pro-life
states in the country similar to the language in SJR 4,
including Tennessee, Alabama and Louisiana. In fact, 62 percent
of voters in Louisiana approved an amendment, supported by the
Louisiana Right to Life and the Louisiana Conference of Catholic
Bishops. One of the nation's foremost legal experts on state
abortion policies, Paul Linton, served as special counsel for
Americans United for Life and authored a book providing a state-
by-state analysis on abortions. He quoted Mr. Linton's comments
on the Alaska Supreme Court's decisions, "It is apparent that
the State of Alaska could not prohibit abortions at least before
viability even if Roe were overruled unless the state
constitution is amended to overturn the holdings in those
decisions." Thus, the state has little authority to regulate
abortion even with current federal constitutional limits because
any such regulations would need to satisfy the strict scrutiny
standard of judicial review. SJR 4 is precisely what Mr. Linton
recommends, a clear and concise amendment that states there is
no right to abortion or funding for an abortion in the Alaska
Constitution.
MR. MINNERY offered his view that pro-life critics will not
succeed in Alaska because the same strategies did not prevail in
other states. He recalled an article related to a 2014 Tennessee
Constitutional Amendment upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals, which is similar to SJR 4. He stated that Tennessee's
strategy did not prevent laws from being challenged. What
happened was it did exactly what was intended, which was
preventing the Tennessee Constitution from stating there is an
inherent right to an abortion. Ultimately, that case may go to
the US Supreme Court. As Mr. Leman said, SJR 4 will not create
abortion law, but it will clarify that the Alaska Constitution
is neutral on abortion, that there is no inherent right to
abortion and the people should decide on the issue. He offered
his view that SJR 4 will restore the balance of power.
1:55:18 PM
BOB BIRD, Chair, Alaska Independence Party, Anchorage, Alaska,
stated that he is the past President of the Alaska Right to Life
organization founded in 1969 by Wayne Anthony Ross.
MR. BIRD agreed with Senator Hughes that the courts have usurped
or overthrown the Alaska Constitution with the Valley Hospital
Association, Inc. v. Mat-Su Coalition and Baker v. City of
Fairbanks. He stated the most important part of the Alaska
Constitution is Art. I, Sec. 22, the right to privacy, which
states that the right of the people to privacy is recognized and
shall not be infringed. However, if the legislature does not
define it, the "sky is the limit," he said. The Alaska
Constitution provides the legislature authority by stating, "The
legislature shall implement this section."
1:57:40 PM
MR. BIRD stated the Alaska Right to Life position is that states
need to pass statutes to regain power. He said he was astonished
when the court ruled that the right to privacy included abortion
rights and an expectation of funding for abortions. He offered
his belief that the courts have overreached their authority in
many ways not related to SJR 4, including the governor's line-
item veto power and the legislature's right to override the
governor's veto. He argued that every single time the
legislature has refused to fund abortion, it does not recognize
the right to privacy granted by Art. I, Sec. 22.
1:59:53 PM
MR. BIRD recalled former President Reagan stated that the oath
of office required him to enforce all US Supreme Court decisions
even ones he does not agree with, but many of the US founding
fathers found otherwise. He said this flies in the face of
Thomas Jefferson who refused to enforce the Sedition Act as did
then-President Andrew Jackson in Worcester v. Georgia. He
paraphrased the Federalist Papers: No 78, which indicates that
governors do not need to enforce US Supreme Court decisions
[Original punctuation provided]:
The legislature not only commands the purse, but
prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of
every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on
the contrary, has no influence over either the sword
or the purse; no direction either of the strength or
of the wealth of the society; and can take no active
resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have
neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.
MR. BIRD credited Montesquieu as recognizing that of the three
powers of government, the judiciary is next to nothing. He
concluded that there are not three equal branches of government.
He referred to Art. IV, Sec. 1 of Alaska's Constitution, which
read, in part, "The jurisdiction of courts shall be prescribed
by law." This language mimics Art. III, Sec. 2 of the U.S.
Constitution, which states that Congress has the power to exempt
the courts from laws as they may direct. He pointed out that
Alaska would not have been able to construct the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS) without an amendment by Congress [to
provide for an improved vessel traffic control system for Prince
William Sound].
2:01:38 PM
MR. BIRD opined that these provisions allow the legislature a
means to assert itself by regaining what is already in the
Constitution in Art. I, Sec. 22. It may be difficult to pass a
statute but it's easier than passing a constitutional amendment
which requires a two-thirds vote by the House and Senate and to
persuade the public, which the press can sway, he said. He said
the only thing that keeps the Alaska Supreme Court from being
impeached is constitutional ignorance, a subservient press, and
a lack of will buy the other two branches of government to
reclaim their constitutional powers.
2:03:34 PM
SENATOR HUGHES agreed that the legislature could define privacy
in the statutes. She offered her belief that the courts would
overturn that definition since Alaska Constitution's provides
the right to equal protection. She pointed out that impeachment
requires a two-thirds vote by the House and the Senate, a very
high bar. In addition, some confusion exists between
jurisdiction and power in terms of what the legislature can do.
Jurisdiction relates to the type of cases. For example, the
jurisdiction granted to the US Supreme Court allows cases
between two states and several other entities. The legislature
determines the jurisdiction of Alaska's courts in terms of
whether the cases will be civil or criminal ones. Jurisdiction
is the type and manner and power is the authority. The US
Constitution states that the US Constitution is the supreme law
of the land. The courts have the power and authority to review
issues according to the law. Thus, limiting judicial review
might backfire. She acknowledged that this was done with the
Alaska pipeline, which may have deterred a case, but it has
never really been tried. She asked members to imagine if the
legislature passed a ban on gun ownership and attached an
amendment that says it is not subject to review by the
judiciary. She said she did not believe an amendment would work.
2:06:09 PM
LISA HART, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, began a PowerPoint on SJR 4. She
turned to slide 2 to a map depicting eight states, including
Alaska, that have minimal or no restrictions for abortion. She
said state-level abortion legislation has been at the forefront
of much-needed debate, specifically the role of separation of
powers within state government.
2:07:33 PM
MS. HART turned to slide 3, highlighting that 42 of 50 states
took action on pro-life legislation. Across the country state
lawmakers have used the legislative process to reflect the will
of the voters. However, this has not been the case in Alaska,
but not for lack of trying.
MS. HART turned to slide 4, What about Alaska?
[Original punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Supreme Court has determined that the
Alaska Constitution provides broader abortion rights
than those interpreted in the U.S. Constitution.
Passing SJR 4 will ensure that unelected judges cannot
strike down pro-life laws that are passed by Alaska's
legislative body or through a citizens' ballot
initiative process.
2:08:04 PM
MS. HART turned to slides 5-8, titled, "Abortion-Related Laws
Overturned in Alaska." [Original punctuation provided]:
1997: Hospital forced to be involved in abortion. When
the Alaska Legislature legalized abortion in 1970,
lawmakers included a provision stating that neither
hospitals nor health care workers had to participate
in abortion.
The Alaska Supreme Court declared a policy by a
private institution, Valley Hospital, to be
unconstitutional to not allow abortions to be
performed in its facility (Valley Hospital Association
v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice).
MS. HART paraphrased slide 6 [Original punctuation provided]:
2007: Law requiring parental consent struck down. The
Supreme Court struck down a 1997 law passed by the
Legislature which ensured that Alaska's law requiring
parental consent before abortion could be enforced.
The court also stated in its ruling that a policy
requiring only parental notification, not consent,
could be upheld as constitutional (State of Alaska v.
Planned Parenthood).
2:09:20 PM
MS. HART paraphrased slide 7 [Original punctuation provided]:
2016: Law requiring parental notice struck down. As a
result of the overturned parental consent law, a
citizen-led voter initiative was passed. The sponsors
relied in good faith on the court's 2007 indication
that a parental notification statute would be
constitutional.
Yet in violation of their own precedent, the Supreme
Court overruled the people and struck down the
parental notification law (Planned Parenthood of the
Great Northwest v. Alaska).
2:09:51 PM
MS. HART paraphrased slide 8 [Original punctuation provided]:
2019: Law defining "medically necessary" abortions
struck down.
In 2014, relying on the Supreme Court's previous
ruling that the State was constitutionally obligated
to pay only for medically necessary abortions, the
Legislature passed a bill (SB 49) that carefully
defined what abortions were medically necessary.
The Alaska Supreme Court handed down a 4 to 1
decision, striking down SB 49 (State of Alaska v.
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest).
MS. HART stated that this was another instance of the court
striking down a law that the legislature passed.
2:10:26 PM
MS. HART presented the sectional analysis shown on slide 9:
[Original punctuation provided]:
Section 1 Article I, Constitution of the State of Alaska,
Page 1, Lines 3-7
Amends the Constitution of the State of Alaska by adding a
new section, Section 26. Abortion. The amendment states
that in order to protect human life, nothing in this
constitution may be construed to secure or protect a right
to an abortion or require the State to fund an abortion.
Section 2 Article I, Constitution of the State of Alaska,
Page 1, Lines 8-10
Adds that the amendment proposed by this resolution shall
be placed before the voters of the state at the next
general election in conformity with art. XIII, sec. 1,
Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the election laws
of the state.
2:11:35 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said he thought Senator Hughes' response to one of
the invited testifiers was apt when she noted that the
legislature could not ban guns because the courts would protect
Alaskans' rights from that level of enactment. He asked how that
is different from the cases cited. The Alaska Supreme Court has
protected Alaskans' rights to medical care, in the form of
abortion when the legislature passed laws that infringed on
Alaskan's constitutional rights.
SENATOR HUGHES responded that it is evident that the US
Constitution's Second Amendment provides the right to bear arms.
However, nothing in the US Constitution or the Alaska
Constitution provides citizens with the right to an abortion, so
it is different.
2:13:44 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD opened public testimony on SJR 4.
2:14:13 PM
WINDY PERKINS, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
support of SJR 4. She offered her view that most people will
agree that the court has overstepped its authority in terms of
abortion.
2:15:35 PM}
MORGAN LIM, Government Relations Manager, Planned Parenthood
Alliance Advocates - Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, spoke in opposition
to SJR 4. He urged the committee not to move the resolution from
the committee.
MR. LIM stated that Alaska is experiencing health crises on
multiple fronts, including the ongoing pandemic, rising sexually
transmitted infections (STIs), and pervasive structural racism.
2:16:12 PM
MR. LIM highlighted that supporters of SJR 4 will say it is
about judicial overreach. Still, the reality is that it is about
abortion, restricting health care access and putting the
government in the middle of personal health care decisions. With
the budget in crisis and people rebuilding their lives as the
state recovers from COVID-19, Planned Parenthood asks
legislators to reject this attack on the public's access to safe
and legal abortion care by voting no on SJR 4. This will impact
those already experiencing barriers to reproductive health care
in Alaska. American Indian and Alaska Native people have endured
a history of state-controlled reproductive coercion and denial
of bodily autonomy. Banning abortion in Alaska will continue
this legacy by denying people the ability to consider all
options available to them, threatening their health and lives in
the process.
MR. LIM continued. Furthermore, people in Alaska do not want SJR
4. Alaskans know that access to abortion is critical to their
health, the health of their families, and the stability of their
communities. It is more important than ever that the Alaska
Constitution protect the right to obtain or reject medical
treatment without governmental interference in personal, private
decisions. He urged the committee to reject SJR 4 and instead
devote its time and energy to proactive policies to improve
public health and ensure access to sexual and reproductive
health care across Alaska.
2:18:42 PM
MARY ELIZABETH KEHRHAHN-STARK, representing self, Fairbanks,
Alaska, spoke in opposition to SJR 4. She offered her belief
that SJR 4 will affect the most vulnerable women since the
typical abortion patient is disproportionately single, very poor
and living below the federal poverty level. She opined that SJR
4 creates sex-based, social and economic discrimination related
to medical treatment. She said she opposes SJR 4 because the
Alaska Constitution, as written, protects each Alaskan
regardless of their sex and income level. Currently, Alaska's
Constitution protects the right to obtain or reject medical
treatment without government interference in people's personal
and private decisions. It offers everyone the opportunity to
control their own lives at the most basic level, including their
bodies, families, and choices. She said:
The Alaska Constitution is dedicated to the principle
that all persons have a natural right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the
enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry, that
all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights,
opportunities and protections under the law and that
all persons have corresponding obligations to the
people and to the state.
2:21:36 PM
PATRICK MARTIN, President, Alaska Right to Life, Wasilla,
Alaska, stated that the core issue of SJR 4 is that life begins
at the moment of conception. Equal protection and equal justice
are demanded for all human beings from the moment of conception
until the natural end of life. He said that overturning a
parental consent law does not equally protect human beings from
the moment of conception. He said that parental consent
transfers the decision of whether to obtain an abortion to the
parents of a minor. Alaska could conform to Roe v. Wade and the
Valley hospital decision, which would mean regulating abortion
with a parental consent law. Another approach would be to
confront Roe v. Wade just as Arkansas's Life at Conception Act
did, likely going to the US Supreme Court. A third option
recognizes that the Alaska Supreme Court's 1997 decision, in his
view, effectively nullified the Alaska Constitution.
MR. MARTIN continued. He maintained the necessity to provide
equal protection and equal justice to all from the moment of
conception, which SJR 4 does not provide. Further, in his view,
the US Supreme Court effectively nullified the US Constitution
with Roe v. Wade. Since nullifying the Constitution would limit
the authority of legislatures and Congress, it makes sense that
these bodies should either nullify those decisions or block
enforcement of them.
2:24:14 PM
ROBIN SMITH, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. She reported that Alaska has four times the
national average for rape and incest in the US. If any state
needs access to abortion, it is Alaska. SJR 4 will erode a
woman's right to privacy. In the words and Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
"Abortion is a matter of both equal protection under the law and
individual autonomy." According to the Institute of Medicine,
unwanted pregnancy can cause severe disruptions to other life
plans, place strain on marriages, and have a negative
psychological impact on the mother and other family members. She
agreed with the previous testifier that young women with low
income would be impacted by SJR 4. She stated that SJR 4 would
severely limit a woman's right to control her body, her health
for the future and her family's welfare. She urged members to
provide women with contraceptives to limit abortion.
2:27:16 PM
LARRY CLEMENT, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
support of SJR 4 because he believes life begins at conception.
He offered his view that most people are pro-life in their
opinions. He stated his belief that abortion is murder. Further,
abortion destroys future citizens, who might work in many
professions. He said that people should be allowed to vote on
SJR 4 rather than have activist judges make those decisions.
2:28:35 PM}
JULIE SMYTH, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. She stated that she is an Inupiat mother
with mental health issues. She related her circumstances when
discovering she was pregnant after a serious relationship ended.
Doctors provided her with information on the potential adverse
effects prescription drugs she needed to help her function could
have on her fetus. She stated that the Alaska Constitution
protects people and SJR 4 could have unintended consequences by
targeting women of color.
2:30:37 PM
KASEY CAFORT, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, urged
members to oppose SJR 4. She offered her view that the Alaska
Constitution provides the right to an abortion, which is a
fundamental freedom of the right to privacy. It allows people
the right to make choices about their future, families and
access to health care. Alaska has some of the highest rates of
sexual assault in the country. She urged members to provide
health care services and solve the budget crisis.
2:32:02 PM
MIKE COONS, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, spoke in support
of SJR 4. He offered his view that the socialist left attacks
conservative values negatively. He offered that poor choices
lead to abortions and children's lives being taken. He
acknowledged that rape and incest should be addressed.
2:34:37 PM
KATELYN AVERY, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4, which would take away all women's
reproductive care rights and autonomy. She pointed out many ways
in which the conception date of a child is not counted,
including the census, birth dates, or to qualify to receive
stimulus checks. She quoted Ruth Bader Ginsburg as saying that a
woman's autonomy determines her life course. SJR 4 makes moral
decisions for women but does not provide support once they are
born. She suggested that members who care about babies should
ensure that the state provides prenatal care, pre-K education,
and health care for Alaska's children.
2:37:36 PM
JAN CAROLYN HARDY, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, said
she also serves as vice-president of the ASEA Local 52 Retirees
and vice-president for the Older Persons Action Group but is
representing herself today. She stated that she has worked as a
teacher, vocational and academic counselor, and administrative
and training counselor. Women have made great strides during her
lifetime but still struggle to achieve self-determination and
equal rights. She said she had observed firsthand the challenges
women face, including pay inequity and inequitable
opportunities. She said that individual rights and freedoms go
to the heart of Alaskan values. She urged members to reject SJR
4 because it is an arcane and reactionary suppression of women's
freedom.
2:39:52 PM
KAREN BAKER, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. She offered her view that seeking to amend
the Alaska Constitution to ban abortion is inappropriate and
harmful but limiting access to health care during a pandemic is
particularly irresponsible. Alaska has high rates of sexual
assault and some of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies
in the US. She urged members to ensure much-needed preventive
health services. She offered her belief that Alaskans need
access to safe, legal abortion care. She said nearly 80 percent
of Alaskan voters have doubts about legislative bans on
abortion. When the courts overturn anti-abortion legislation,
judges are not legislating from the bench but are striking down
illegal laws.
2:41:40 PM
RILEY CHIEN, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. He stated that access to reproductive
health care, including abortion, is a fundamental right of
Alaskans. However, he urged members not to lose sight of the
fact that the goal of SJR 4 is to stop all abortions with no
exceptions. He offered his belief that this resolution is a
fight about individual rights and public health.
2:42:39 PM
DAWN DULEBOHN, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. She said she researched the Alaska
Constitution and the preamble reads:
We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those
who founded our nation and pioneered this great land,
in order to secure and transmit to succeeding
generations our heritage of political, civil, and
religious liberty within the Union of States, do
ordain and establish this constitution for the State
of Alaska.
2:09:51 PM
MS. DULEBOHN stated that liberty is defined as the state of
being free in society of oppressive restrictions imposed by
authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
She said she thought about many things, including that people
who push to make abortion illegal have not put the same effort
into creating an infrastructure to protect the result of
unwanted pregnancies if the pregnancies come to term. Women have
the right to personal liberty. It is not a government's right to
make sweeping medical decisions that force individuals to do
something not right for them. She offered her view that
government could provide increased funding for sex education and
birth control either in schools or, if too controversial, by
Planned Parenthood. This organization dedicates a significant
portion of its budget to education and pregnancy prevention. She
suggested that government should empower women with education
and the tools to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
2:46:04 PM
KATIE BOTZ, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, stated her belief
that abortion is murder. She said her parents put her up for
adoption because they could not afford her medical treatment.
The judicial system should not strike down laws the legislature
passes. She urged members to support all life and pass SJR 4.
2:48:01 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD stated that the public could also submit written
testimony to senate judiciary@akleg.gov.
2:48:46 PM
LYNETTE PHAM, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, offered her
view that government has a history of controlling indigenous
women and their bodies through forced sterilization. She stated
that SJR 4 would interfere with a woman's rights to privacy. She
said she does not want the legislature to have authority over
her uterus or anyone else's uterus. She asked members to
consider passing a bill that will provide birth control and not
SJR 4, which she believes is unconstitutional.
2:50:40 PM
LISA GENTEMANN, representing self, Eagle River, Alaska, spoke in
support of SJR 4. She read a quote from James Wilson, an
original US Supreme Court justice.
[Original punctuation provided]:
With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human
life, from its commencement to its close, is protected
by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life
begins when the infant is first able to stir in the
womb. By the law, life is protected not only from
immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual
violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of
danger.
2:51:29 PM
MS. GENTEMANN quoted from the Bible to illustrate her belief
that life begins when the infant stirs in the womb. Abortion is
not health care. She offered her view that the US Supreme Court
failed in its obligation to follow precedent in Roe v. Wade. She
responded to those testifying that having a baby would interfere
with their education by stating that she obtained a master's
degree as a single mother. It required being resourceful and
working hard, but it was doable. She said Alaskans should
protect the rights of the unborn.
2:52:56 PM
JENNIFER EUBANK, representing self, Kodiak, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. The Alaska Constitution protects the right
to retain or reject medical treatment without government
interference. She urged members to stop trying to restrict
women's personal health care decisions by amending the Alaska
Constitution by claiming judicial overreach. Women are not
second-class citizens. The legislature could fund sex education,
support birth control access and support children in the system
instead of trying to limit access to women's health care by
passing SJR 4.
2:54:15 PM
SERENE O'HARA-OLLEY, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, spoke
in opposition to SJR 4. Individual rights and freedoms go to the
heart of who we are as a state, including the right to access a
safe and legal abortion. She expressed concern that legislators
want to regulate private medical decisions of women. However,
access to care is not a partisan issue. An overwhelming majority
of people from all party affiliations in Alaska support the
right to choose. Amending the constitutional right to privacy in
Alaska, a state that prides itself on a narrative of
individualism, is unacceptable. She stated that members took an
oath to uphold the Alaska Constitution not to amend it to fit
legislator's moral values or to change it to have power over the
lives of those who can become pregnant.
2:56:26 PM
HAL GAGE, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. He said he appreciated the previous
eloquent testifiers who spoke against SJR 4. He urged members
not to alter the Alaska Constitution with partisan amendments
and affiliated with one religious' outlook.
2:57:12 PM
KATHERINE LYLE, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. SJR 4 would remove her constitutional
rights, which are not "alleged" constitutional rights. She
viewed SJR 4 as a constitutional amendment that contains
religious views. She pointed out that all the invited testifiers
were men. She said, "My body is not up for discussion. My body
is not up for regulation." She offered her view that abortion is
health care.
2:58:23 PM
PAMELA SAMASH, representing self, Nenana, Alaska, spoke in
support of SJR 4 so people will have an opportunity to vote on
this issue. She said that children are blessings from God and
are not burdens.
2:59:54 PM
DIANA REDWOOD, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. She suggested that the legislature should
support women who are raising their children and not put in
place barriers to abortion for women who choose to end their
pregnancies. The Alaska Constitution provides safeguards for the
privacy rights of Alaskans. SJR 4 does not advance those values.
3:00:39 PM
KEVIN THOMAS, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
support of SJR 4. He said previous testifiers stated much of
what he would like to say. He offered his view that people who
support abortions place their bodies, lifestyle, economic
situation, color, privacy and self-determination above the
rights of an unborn child. He offered his view that people
cannot take the lives of humans and be innocent at the same
time.
3:01:51 PM
BILL MOSER, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. He offered his view that outlawing or
restricting abortion does not reduce abortions, but it harms
women's physical health and restricts access to safe abortions.
Studies have shown that reducing abortions require providing
access to better health care, services for birth control, access
to safe family planning and other health services.
3:05:02 PM
MOIRA PYHALA, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. As a lifelong Alaskan, she knows firsthand
the challenges many individuals face related to health care
decisions. Alaska has the highest rate of sexual assault and
child abuse in the nation. She stated that she was a victim of
sexual assault. SJR 4 will not end abortions, just safe
abortions, she said. She recalled horrific stories her
grandmother told her about women dying due to unsafe abortions
prior to Roe v. Wade. She suggested that the legislature should
fund a variety of children's services. She said she was
disappointed that the committee took invited testimony from pro-
life men rather than experts or those who directly face unwanted
pregnancies or had abortions. She asked members to address
issues, such as lowering the rate of sexual assault and domestic
violence.
3:07:49 PM
HEIDI FROST, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. She said she was thankful that the Alaska
Supreme Court protects us from the legislature's illegal actions
by attacking Alaskans' liberties. She offered her belief that
access to health care is a right, including reproductive health
care. She said she considers it a privacy issue and an equal
rights issue. Making abortion illegal will increase women's
deaths and lead to risky abortions. She expressed concern about
those who want to control women's rights but do not want to pay
for childcare after birth. She highlighted that some legislators
object to wearing masks during a pandemic, which can protect
public health because they view those requirements as
interfering with their right to privacy. However, these same
legislators object to women's rights to privacy to make personal
decisions about their bodies.
3:09:57 PM
SARAH GROCOTT, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, stated that
she appreciated those who testified in opposition to SJR 4. She
said she loves being a mother but believes in a woman's autonomy
over her body and her personal rights. She urged members to
please oppose SJR 4.
3:11:21 PM
BERNIE HOFFMAN, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, spoke in
opposition to SJR 4. She said she appreciates previous
testifiers who spoke in opposition to SJR 4. She suggested that
the legislature should focus its energy on other matters.
3:12:12 PM
CHAIR REINBOLD closed public testimony on SJR 4.
[SJR 4 was held in committee.]
3:13:49 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Reinbold adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 04.16.21 SJR 4 (S)JUD presenation.pdf |
SJUD 4/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR4 Public Testimony up to April 15, 2021.pdf |
SJUD 4/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 version A.PDF |
SHSS 3/16/2021 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 Fiscal Note Governor.pdf |
SHSS 3/16/2021 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SHSS 3/16/2021 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR 4 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SHSS 3/16/2021 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/16/2021 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |