Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/05/2000 01:56 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
April 5, 2000
1:56 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator John Torgerson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 300
"An Act relating to services and information available to
pregnant women and other persons; and requiring informed consent
and a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion may be performed
unless there is a medical emergency."
-MOVED CSSB 300(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 275(JUD)
"An Act relating to the Uniform Probate Code, including trusts
and governing instruments; relating to trustees; relating to
under productive trust property; and relating to conveyances of
real property and interests in real property by or to trusts."
-MOVED CSSSHB 275(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 318(JUD)
"An Act relating to property disposal by law enforcement
agencies."
-MOVED CSHB 318(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 300 - No previous action to report.
HB 275 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/22/00.
HB 318 - No previous action to report.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Mike Pauley
Staff to Senator Leman
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 300
Dr. Peter Nakamura
Department of Health and Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 300
Ms. Kirsten Bomengen
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 300
Ms. Caren Robinson
Alaska Women's Lobby
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 300
Mrs. Debbie Joslin
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 300
Ms. Regina Manteufel
1128 East 10th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 300
Ms. Anne Harrison
3270 Rosie Creek Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 300
Ms. Donna Rae Faulkner
PO Box 2742
Homer, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 300
Ms. Robin Smith
14100 Jarvi
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 300
Ms. Jennifer Rudinger
AKCLU
PO Box 201844
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 300
Dr. Whitefield
No address furnished
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 300
Ms. Rose Medeiros
No address furnished
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 300
Ms. Leila Wise
PO Box 244034
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 300
Ms. Amy Bollenbach
PO Box 3429
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 300
Representative Con Bunde
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 318
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-19, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Senate Judiciary Committee
meeting to order at 1:56 p.m. Present were SENATOR ELLIS,
SENATOR HALFORD and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR. The first order of business
to come before the committee was SB 300.
SB 300-INFO AND INFORMED CONSENT FOR ABORTION
SENATOR HALFORD stated that he introduced SB 300 as a companion
bill to HB 329 but, because it was past the deadline for
submitting personal bills, SB 300 was submitted by the Senate
Resources Committee.
MR. MIKE PAULEY, staff to Senator Leman, said that SB 300 is
similar to HB 329. It requires Alaska physicians to provide
women seeking an elected abortion with information regarding the
potential physical and psychological risks of the procedure, as
well as information about the alternatives to abortion. The U.S.
Supreme Court noted in H.L. v Matheson in 1981 that the medical,
emotional and psychological consequences of abortion are serious
and can be lasting.
MR. PAULEY said, with regard to informed consent, the U.S.
Supreme Court observed in Planned Parenthood v Danforth in 1976
that a decision to have an abortion is "an important and often a
stressful one, and it is desirable and imperative that it be made
with full knowledge of it's nature and the consequences." Alaska
regulation requires that physicians advise patients seeking
abortions of the "medical implications and possible emotional and
physical sequela of the procedure." However, Alaska's informed
consent provision lags behind other states because it exists only
in regulation and not in statute. It also lacks specificity and
is not uniform in its application. More than 25 other states
have laws requiring informed consent before abortions are
performed. States with some of the most comprehensive informed
consent statutes include Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin.
MR. PAULEY said SB 300 will elevate the informed consent
requirement from regulation to statute, and it will require the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) to develop a
standard information brochure which physicians will make
available to women considering an abortion. The brochure will
include information on public and private agencies that provide
services to assist pregnant women, including adoption services.
The brochure will include objective information and photographs
depicting the anatomical and physiological characteristics of a
typical unborn child at two week gestational increments. The
brochure will also describe specific potential health risks of
abortion including infection, hemorrhage, breast cancer, danger
to subsequent pregnancies and infertility.
Number 310
DR. PETER NAKAMURA, DHSS, stated that, as a physician for 39
years and an administrator for three of those years, he has a
high level of discomfort with SB 300. One of his major concerns
is that the bill attempts to define terms, not on the basis of
medical or surgical necessity or even logic, but in terms of
meeting a philosophical need. The bill is an attempt to
determine how the medical profession will intervene in the issue
of abortion. Definitions of "conception," "fertilization,"
"pregnancy," "gestation" and "unborn child" are critical. In SB
300 a pregnancy means the fusion of an egg and a sperm - that is
not a pregnancy. A pregnancy starts when an ovum and sperm begin
to develop and actually implant in the body, causing a reaction
that triggers hormone production. Changing definitions to meet
philosophical needs frightens people who deal with medical
issues.
DR. NAKAMURA said the language of SB 300 also gives the
impression that physicians do not give informed consent - this is
untrue. Physicians, for legal reasons and for health reasons, do
give informed consent information. Another problem is that the
bill has the tendency to direct the kind of information the
provider will give. By not including information on the
complications of taking a pregnancy to term or the complications
of an illegal abortion, SB 300 is not requiring full information.
DR. NAKAMURA said there is also the issue of requiring a woman to
wait 24 hours after signing a consent form. Experience shows a
53 percent increase in second term abortions after this type of
restriction is applied and complications arise significantly the
longer a woman waits.
DR. NAKAMURA said there is also language in the bill that gives a
false impression about the complications of surgical
intervention. SB 300 suggests there may be an increased cancer
risk, increased fertilization and a number of other
complications, which is not true. There are many studies that
demonstrate that complications are no greater without surgical
intervention than with surgical intervention.
As a state health officer and the director of the Division of
Public Health, DR. NAKAMURA strongly objected to SB 300 and
recommended that it not go any further.
MS. KIRSTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General with the
Department of Law (DOL), said that a previous testifier stated
the requirements in SB 300 are similar to those in other states
and those requirements have withstood legal challenge. However,
DOL believes the requirements in SB 300 will not withstand a
legal challenge in Alaska because the Alaska Supreme Court has
different standards. The 1997 Valley Hospital v Matsu Coalition
case established that any restraints on abortion will be tested
by viewing abortion as a fundamental right and will only be
constrained when it is legally justified. DOL believes that
some of the provisions in SB 300 will not withstand this kind of
scrutiny because they will be viewed as employing excessive means
to accomplish the ends of assuring that a patient is given
informed medical consent before receiving an abortion.
MS. BOMENGEN said, with regard to the brochure, section 1(3)
reads, "states that a person may not lawfully coerce a woman to
undergo an abortion;." This statement, in itself, is not
legally accurate. There are many ways to apply coercive pressure
to a woman, and there is no law against a person acting in this
manner. DOL urges that this subsection be rewritten so that
medical providers can place information in the brochure that is
accurate and will not be subject to this type of scrutiny.
MS. BOMENGEN noted that section 1(5) reads,
states that the father of a child is liable to assist
in the support of the child even in instances where the
father has offered to pay for an abortion, and that the
law permits adoptive parents to pay costs of prenatal
care, childbirth, and neonatal care;.
This wording may mislead a woman into believing that she can
actually obtain that support. This section should contain a
provision that addresses the need for a woman to take legal
action in order to gain this support, and there should be
something that addresses the frequency with which support is not
obtained.
MS. BOMENGEN said section 1(B)(b) reads, "The information
required under (a) of this section must be written in easily
comprehensible language and must be printed in a typeface that is
large enough to be clearly legible." This subsection does not
sufficiently address people who have limited English proficiency.
The Departments of Health and Social Services in many states have
been coming under scrutiny for providing information where other
languages are spoken.
MS. BOMENGEN noted the definitions that appear in section 1(B)(d)
and in section 4(c) are not medically accurate. They create
confusion and this confusion is addressed in the context of
section 2. Section 2(a)(5) requires that the applicable
requirements of AS 18.16.060 have been satisfied, and this
involves the 24-hour waiting period before any action may be
initiated by a doctor to address the request for an abortion.
This subsection needs to be read in conjunction with the
definition of abortion in AS 18.16.090. In this provision, an
abortion is the use or prescription of an instrument, medicine or
drug or other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of a
woman known to be pregnant. The definition of conception in SB
300, the mere fusion of a human sperm and ovum, can be construed
with the other definitions to impose a prohibition upon the
administration of emergency contraception. It should be clear
that emergency contraception will not be counter to this
provision because it will most certainly be found to be
unconstitutional since emergency contraception is only effective
in the first 24 hours - when the waiting period is being imposed.
MS. BOMENGEN said section 3 imposes physician liability that
includes both compensatory and punitive damages without any limit
on what the damages might be. Looking at other states, this
seems to have had a chilling effect on the availability of
abortions. The indefinite level of damages needs to be examined.
MS. BOMENGEN stated the 24-hour waiting period in section 4
presents problems regarding equal protection and privacy.
Abortion is a medical procedure sought only by women and it is
the only medical procedure in which a 24-hour delay is imposed.
As a matter of law, if SB 300 is enacted, the intrusion into the
physician-patient relationship for this sole procedure may fail
to meet a constitutional challenge.
MS. BOMENGEN added that for rural Alaskan women, the 24-hour
delay could be viewed as imposing unnecessary costs. It will
place a burden on them that will not meet the test of being the
least restrictive means of assuring a woman is informed and has
given her consent.
MS. BOMENGEN noted that section 4(b)(1) says, "(F) that medical
assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care,
childbirth, and neonatal care; and (G) that the father is liable
to assist in the support of the woman's child, even in instances
where the father has offered to pay for the abortion." For a
woman who is pregnant as the result of rape or incest, requiring
a doctor to say that the rapist can be held liable for the
support of the child can be seen to cause psychological harm and
to not serve a medical purpose. An amendment has been made to HB
329 that addresses this issue, which allows the doctor to use
discretion in whether to raise this particular issue. It was
also determined that some psychological harm can be caused by a
physician spending time addressing medical assistance benefits
with parents whose unborn child has been diagnosed with a lethal
fetal anomaly. These issues should be addressed in a way that
will give some discretion to a physician who has to impart this
information.
Number 1207
Ms. Bomengen also called attention to section 4(3), "a copy of
the information described in (2)(A) of this subsection has been
given to the woman; and." This subsection means that the
information does not have to be provided 24 hours in advance but
it requires the pamphlet be given to the woman. In some
instances, this will have to happen whether the woman wants it or
not. This can also be considered to do psychological harm.
MS. BOMENGEN addressed section 4(c)(3), "'medical emergency'
means a condition that, on the basis of the physician's good
faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of
a pregnant woman that the immediate termination of a woman's
pregnancy is necessary to avert the woman's death or that a delay
in providing an abortion will create serious risk of substantial
and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the
woman;." Because this section does not address potential
psychological harm, DOL believes it will be subject to
constitutional problems.
Number 1333
MS. CAREN ROBINSON, Alaska Women's Lobby (AWL), stated the Lobby
has a membership of about 1,000 men and women across the state.
It was established in 1983 and its purpose is to preserve hard-
won statutory and budgetary gains for women and children of this
state.
MS. ROBINSON made the following statement:
Inserting a political directive in a medical decision is an
intrusion of privacy of the worst kind. No other surgical
procedure involves the Alaska legislature insinuating itself
between the patient and the doctor to determine informed
consent.
Will the legislature concurrently require women who decide
to take a pregnancy to term to be educated about the hazards
and costs of parenthood and counseled about the options of
abortion? AWL thinks not, for the same reason--one's right
to privacy. Or will the legislature require a man who
wishes to have a vasectomy be reminded of the consequences
of his actions and require him to wait to make sure he knows
what he is doing? Again, it is a right, not a privilege
that the legislature can make optional at its desire.
In 1983 the U. S. Supreme Court struck down a local
ordinance from Akron, Ohio that required doctors to give
patients seeking abortions anti-abortion literature and
impose a 24 hour waiting period. AWL suspects that the
Alaska Supreme Court will come to a similar conclusion about
this bill if it is to become law.
Number 1465
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that the main thrust of this
legislation is informed consent and Ms. Robinson's testimony is
in opposition to informed consent.
MS. ROBINSON said that it is important that people advocate for
themselves and work with their doctors to get as much information
as they can on any medical procedure. AWL is against informed
consent being inserted by the legislature, by law.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that the legislature passed a licensure
bill on tattooing and body piercing, and with the bill was a
provision for informed consent that said a parent had to be
informed and a consent form had to be signed before the procedure
could be done. Where was the Women's Lobby on this legislation?
MS. ROBINSON responded she was not asked to monitor that
legislation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said, "Then it's okay to get parental consent for
body piercing but it's wrong to ask for parental consent for an
abortion procedure?"
MS. ROBINSON responded that because she has not read or paid
attention to this legislation she cannot speak to it.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if SB 300 speaks to parental consent.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR responded yes, it refers to existing law on
parental consent.
Number 1580
MS. DEBBIE JOSLIN, representing herself, said she has been
appointed to be an expert on this subject, she is not willingly
doing this or testifying by her choice, but she is an expert on
the subject. Ms. Joslin made the following statement:
On January 15, 1999, I was 22 weeks pregnant when we drove
to Fairbanks for an ultrasound on our child. After a
lengthy examination of the baby, I was told we were
expecting a male child with multiple anomalies. The baby we
named Isaiah John had a brain cyst, a missing or unconnected
stomach and a hypoplastic left heart. We were given the
name of a Perinatologist in Anchorage,. A perinatologist,
as I understand it, is a doctor who specializes in unborn
babies who have serious health complications. I spoke to
this specialist over the phone and made arrangements to go
to Anchorage and have another ultrasound. During that phone
conversation she urged me to have the pregnancy terminated.
The reasons she listed were that the baby would probably die
anyway, the medical expenses would be too great and that my
own life was probably in danger. Keep in mind, she had not
examined me at this point. I made an appointment with this
doctor, since I was told she was the only perinatologist in
the state. My husband and I drove 350 miles to keep that
appointment, leaving Delta at 40 below zero. When we
arrived for our appointment we first saw a genetic counselor
who went over some family history with us and explained that
they thought Isaiah had Trisomy 18, a chromosomal
abnormality (an extra number 18 chromosome). She expressed
surprise that we were not considering terminating the
pregnancy and asked several times whether we wanted to
consider terminating the pregnancy. Another ultrasound was
performed by a technician and then the perinatologist took
over the exam and listed the following anomalies: Brain
cyst, missing or unconnected stomach, hypoplastic left
heart, eyes not properly spaced, underdeveloped chin,
something wrong with spinal development, something wrong
with his penis, rocker bottom feet, possibly an extra toe
and fluid in the abdominal cavity and lungs. We were told
the fluid indicated that Isaiah was already in congestive
heart failure and that he would never make it to his due
date in May. We were also told that all Trisomy infants
were severely mentally retarded. The perinatologist told us
that Isaiah would never respond to us if he were to live.
She described a somewhat vegetative state but more probably
he would be stillborn any day. She said that if he were to
be born alive he would only live for a few hours or maybe a
day at most. We agreed to an amniocentesis to determine
whether Isaiah did actually have Trisomy 18. Our hope was
that he would not, and we could begin to make plans for
heart surgery. She told us doctors will not operate on
Trisomy infants since they ALL die in infancy anyway.
You can imagine what heavy hearts we had as we drove back to
Delta. The plans and dreams I had had for my son were
shelved as we instead discussed his funeral. Within a few
days I got a call from the genetic counselor with the
preliminary test results which showed Isaiah had Trisomy 13.
I asked how that differed from Trisomy 18 and she said it
was worse. She asked again about termination and I told her
again that we were not interested in that. Almost
immediately I got a call from my doctor in Fairbanks who
asked me about termination. I told here (again) I was not
interested in that. She told me that since my life was in
danger and I had chosen to continue with the pregnancy, she
could no longer be my doctor as she was a general
practitioner and not qualified to handle such a case. I
began seeing the osteopath doctor in Delta and an OB/GYN in
Fairbanks. I told them what I had been told about the baby
and about my own health. The OB/GYN doctor told me he could
not understand why I had been told my life was in danger.
He treated me during the remainder of the pregnancy and I
never had any complications or problems. Only the usual
complaints pregnant women suffer from.
A couple of weeks after the preliminary results, the genetic
counselor called with the final results from Isaiah's
amniocentesis. It was final - Isaiah had Trisomy 13. She
asked me again about termination and I told her no again. I
then asked her out of curiosity what she would do if I did
say yes. She got very excited and told me that "there is
the most wonderful clinic in Kansas." I asked if she meant
Tiller's and she said "yes, do you know him?" "No, I told
her, but I know about him." She offered to have other women
who had had abortions call me but I declined. Sensing that
I was not interested in pursuing this any further she told
me in a very apologetic voice that "there is a parent
support group, but well ... they are rather positive." She
made it sound as though positive was a bad thing to be. She
then went on to tell me that she had information on the
group including an 800 number as well as pamphlets and books
in her office that gave detailed information about Trisomy
18, 13 and related disorders including pictures. I called
S.O.F.T. (Support Organization for Trisomy 18, 13 and
Related Disorders) right away and found that they were
indeed positive - but realistic. I told the woman over the
phone about Isaiah's diagnosis and she told me that probably
they were right but there was a chance he could live. She
talked to me about the other "parents" and I remember asking
her, "parents, you mean they have children?" "Yes, some
did," she said. "How old?" I was told that they varied but
there were a few children who were teenagers and even a
couple of adults. The lady took my name and address and
told me she would send me a family packet right away. I
also requested the books they had available: Trisomy 13, a
Guideline for Families and Care of the Infant, and Child
with Trisomy 18 or 13. These were the books the genetic
counselor had described, the very ones she had in her
office. While the information was heartbreaking, it also
offered some hope and some help--two things we had not had
much of. Not only did some of these children live, they
played and smiled and laughed and talked and learned things
and showed affection and responded to love and affection.
We located a wonderful pediatrician in Fairbanks who agreed
that Isaiah's chances were not good but she was willing to
do what she could to help him. We made the decision to hire
her, and then we made plans to deliver our baby in
Fairbanks. On May 10, only 11 days before his due date,
Isaiah John Joslin was born at Fairbanks Memorial Hospital.
He weighed six pounds one ounce and was 18 1/4 inches long.
Isaiah was a pretty baby with lots of bright red hair.
Isaiah had difficulty breathing when first born, but as the
doctors and nurses checked him over they could find no sign
of the problems seen earlier on the three different
ultrasounds. The brain cyst, stomach problem and
hypoplastic heart were all missing, as were all of the other
problems earlier noted. However, Isaiah suffered from a
ventricular septal defect (VSD), a hole in his heart.
Although very serious, it was a far cry from the problems he
had earlier. Isaiah required oxygen and a nasal gastric
tube for feeding. Because of the hole in his heart, he was
too weak to nurse and had to be fed with a tube. Isaiah
looked so normal that even the nursing staff agreed we
should retest him. Test results again showed Isaiah to have
Trisomy 13. He stayed in the hospital for 12 days and then
came home where we cared for him for 20 days before he left
us to go to be with the Lord in heaven. Those were some of
the hardest but sweetest days of my life.
I am telling you this story so you will understand why I
stand before you today and ask that you pass SB 300.
After talking to other doctors and doing a great deal of
research and reading about Trisomy infants and because of my
own personal experience, I believe my life was never in any
danger. Yet, this undue burden was placed on me at a time
when I already had plenty to worry about.
I was told that all trisomy infants die. I now know that
somewhere between 90 and 95% of all trisomy infants die
before one year of age. That does not leave much room for
hope I realize, but it is quite different than saying they
all die.
I was not told about the parent support group for over two
weeks. Well, you may say they were not sure my child had
Trisomy until the final results were in. Perhaps, but they
were sure enough that they continually brought up
termination. I drove 350 miles to see the doctor and was
never shown the written information about this disorder,
that they had right there.
Though they were careful to tell me every negative thing
they could about the baby, I was never told of any of the
risks of having an abortion. There was never any mention
made of the risk to my health, either physical or emotional.
I believe the doctors who repeatedly brought up termination
probably meant well. The problem comes in where they
apparently believed that their professional status, or their
medical degrees placed them in a position to know better
than me what was best for me, my family and my baby--that
simply was not true.
Giving life to Isaiah was hard on our family but it was not
too hard. It was expensive but it was not too expensive.
It was hard on the other children but it was not too hard.
Giving life to Isaiah blessed our family, including the
other children. Because of his heart condition, Isaiah was
always lethargic, sleepy and tired-acting, but he was never
in pain. The equipment, which monitored his oxygen
saturation rate, showed that whenever we held him or showed
affection to him, Isaiah was aware of it. His saturation
levels would soar when he was being loved on. There seems
to be a feeling out there that a successful life is one that
is free from pain or suffering or trials, and that is not
true. Isaiah's life was successful. We loved him and he
loved us.
Of course, I would like for every mother to make the same
decision I did but I realize that will not happen. But
every mother deserves to have all of the information
pertinent to her situation so that she can make an
intelligent informed decision. I stand before you today and
say that if you vote against SB 300 you are saying, in
effect, that women are not competent enough to be trusted
with the facts regarding the health of their own bodies and
that of their unborn children. A no vote says that you have
no compassion for families and believe that doctors are
better suited to make decisions for women and their unborn
babies.
A yes vote for SB 300 sends an entirely different message.
A vote for informed consent says that you have respect for
the intelligence of a women and believe that they have the
right to be trusted with the information necessary to make
decisions for themselves. I trust and hope that this body
of legislators will prove themselves to be in favor of
women's rights.
Number 2177
MS. REGINA MANTEUFEL, speaking on her own behalf, said that in
regard to section 1 of SB 300, she called the Right to Life
Coalition and said she was a pregnant woman who needed a place to
stay. She was told that they had homes for teenagers but no
place for older women. She said it is frustrating for her
because at the Fairview Compass meeting about a year ago she had
a woman beg her to help build a place to house women with babies
because there were not enough beds at pregnancy shelters.
MS. MANTEUFEL said section 6 does not make sense because she
deals with pregnant women and women who have babies. Costs
associated with raising a child need to be discussed. There is
not enough of a support network with the agencies that are
available to take care of babies. There is not enough of a
network of people to collect money from dead beat fathers. A
woman from rural Alaska cannot afford hotel rates when coming to
town for a medical appointment, and then wait through the
required 24-hour waiting period. A woman should have the right
to decide what to do with her body, regardless of the amount of
money she makes. There would be fewer abortions if there was a
system that provided birth control pills at a lower cost for
women. If pamphlets are given out with pictures of unborn babies
and gestation periods, then there should also be a pamphlet
telling women what the cost of apartments, cabs, hotels, the
latest number on the waiting list for section 8 and what
litigation fees will cost in trying to recover money from dead
beat dads. The costs should be listed for having a baby and of
raising a child. Ms. Manteufel stated she is pro-choice.
Tape 00-19, Side B
MS. ANNE HARRISON, a semi-retired nurse practitioner from
Fairbanks, said that Mrs. Joslin's testimony underlines the need
for professional, compassionate and sensitive counseling. She
suggested that nurses, rather than physicians, are often the best
people to provide this.
MS. HARRISON said she is strongly opposed to SB 300 and, even
with the amendment, it is nothing more than a blatant anti-
choice, anti-abortion piece of legislation. By regulation, women
are now receiving professional, unbiased information about the
risks of pregnancy and about the benefits of the choices they
make in regard to pregnancy. Ms. Harrison asked that the
committee members listen to and talk with public health nurses,
clinic and office nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians
assistants and physicians who work in reproductive health. These
people know the risk of pregnancy, abortion and even adoption
based on science, research and experience. Individuals or groups
who have personal and or religious agendas to promote have a
biased mind set. Their information is often based on one-sided
information gleaned from very select and often incorrect
resources. "We are a country based on the separation of church
and state, do not forget this, and do not torment women at an
often trying time with this bill of anti-choice bias."
Number 2197
MS. DONNA RAE FAULKNER, representing 12 Homer residents, said
she is against SB 300. It has been nearly 30 years since
American women were granted the right to choose an abortion for
an unwanted pregnancy. Roe v Wade was crafted in such a way to
make abortion legally possible, accessible and practical and
since 1971 there have been countless attempts to erode this
right--HB 329 and SB 300 are perfect examples of this. This bill
incorporates additional shame, pain and guilt into a woman's
decision to have an abortion.
MS. FAULKNER said the proposal for a 24-hour waiting period after
informed consent seems as if it was designed to place a woman
into purgatory while she waits for a procedure that is allowed by
law. Ms. Faulkner does not know of anyone who has casually
dropped into her physician's office for an abortion without
intensive decision making and without considering it to be a last
resort. This decision process is totally disrespected and
disregarded by SB 300.
MS. FAULKNER stated it is additionally disrespectful to use
propaganda tactics such as forcing women to view and study
various anatomical and physiological characteristics of the fetus
from conception on, and then to sign a statement saying she has
done this before her abortion can be performed--more guilt and
shame.
MS. FAULKNER said the bill also requires women to understand the
various abortion procedures. Will this include information on
later term abortions that may not even be applicable to that
woman? Informed consent as proposed in SB 300 goes far beyond a
woman being educated about the procedure she is about to
undertake and the medical risks involved.
MS. FAULKNER commented that SB 300 proposes that women should be
given lists of resources available that can help her carry her
child to term, and to inform the father of his responsibilities.
If the state's goal is to restrict a woman's right to an
abortion, then one is to assume that it wants all pregnancies to
be carried to term, but where is the help with the rest of the
child's parenting? This bill is likely to decrease the number of
abortions but it will not decrease the number of unwanted
children.
MS. FAULKNER said Alaska women have the right to choose an
abortion just like all American women, and the state has no
business trying to hurt a woman who has made this difficult
choice or to scare her with tactics, propaganda and road blocks.
MS. FAULKNER said the 12 Homer residents she is representing are:
Karey Thurman, Jane Albert, Judy Flora, Melon Purcell, Jim
Meesis, Kathy Steberl, Terry Thurman, Michelle Waneka, Laura
Wilke, Kate Finn and Heidi Glotfelty.
Number 2083
MS. ROBIN SMITH, representing herself, stated she is pro-choice.
She disagrees with the people who oppose abortion but, just as
she does not want a woman coerced into having an abortion, she
also does not want a woman coerced into carrying a pregnancy to
term. This bill attempts to inflict one person's religious
beliefs onto another's and questions a woman's intelligence and
moral values.
MS. SMITH said there is already a waiting period longer than the
required 24 hour waiting period--it takes three weeks past a
missed menstruation to perform the earliest surgical abortion and
this is because a physician must be able to visually see the
fetal tissue.
MS. SMITH noted there is also the consideration that an abortion
costs $550.00 and this is only if a woman lives within the three
communities where surgical abortion is offered--Anchorage, Palmer
and Kenai.
MS. SMITH said that because of the advances in technology,
everyone has seen pictures of a fetus and there is no need to go
back and educate women about the fetus.
MS. SMITH noted that C. Everett Koop, the pro-life surgeon
general, could not find any adverse psychological effects from an
abortion. However, for the past 16 years Alaska has had the
highest rape rate per capita in the United States--what type of
trauma will this legislation inflict on a rape victim?
MS. SMITH said that if the legislature wants to make sure a woman
knows what she is doing, a better way would be to require
responsible sex education in the schools--having an impact on
both men and women. Ms. Smith urged the committee to vote
against SB 300.
Number 1941
MS. JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director for the Alaska Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), said she speaks in opposition to SB 300
on behalf of the 1,000 members of the ACLU and for other people
who have contacted her in opposition to SB 300.
MS. RUDINGER addressed the question that Chairman Taylor asked
Ms. Robinson in regard to the difference between SB 300 and the
tattooing bill concerning informed consent. First of all, a 24
hour waiting period is not required, which causes extra expense
and delay. But more importantly, people who want a tattoo are
not being given biased propaganda by the state and forced to sign
off that they have received it. People are not forced to incur
the extra expense of consulting with a physician before getting a
tattoo, and abortion is a constitutional right. The U.S. Supreme
Court and the Alaska Supreme Court have decided that the right to
choose an abortion is a woman's fundamental constitutional right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked her and said that he was not addressing
the unique differences between the two bills, he was talking
about the concept of whether or not there should be informed
consent for a female child who is pregnant.
MS. RUDINGER stated that no one will argue that informed consent
is not important. Doctors are now required to obtain informed
consent for any medical procedure and they are required to spend
time counseling women.
MS. RUDINGER said that SB 300 is unconstitutional and the ACLU
agrees with Ms. Bomengen's earlier testimony. SB 300 violates a
woman's right and endangers her health. It also imposes extra
cost and great burdens on women who are seeking to exercise these
fundamental rights. The ACLU hopes the committee will stop the
progress of SB 300.
Number 1733
DR. WHITEFIELD, an OB/GYN practicing in Alaska and representing
women of Alaska, said that he has maintained a data base on
abortion in Alaska for many years. Frequently, people who come
to Anchorage for an abortion come from the Bush and, the Bush, in
most cases, represents Alaska Natives. The 24-hour waiting
period will incur additional costs for Alaskan Natives who choose
to come to Anchorage, or any other city, for a pregnancy
termination--increasing the cost.
DR. WHITEFIELD said that redefining the word "conception" opens
up a number of issues. What will happen to the standard forms of
birth control, such as intrauterine devises, emergency
contraception and birth control pills--all of which can cause a
pregnancy to slough from the side of the uterus before it
implants? Do these types of birth control become abortions and,
if so, how will physicians counsel women who want an IUD, birth
control pills or need emergency contraception? If people have
eggs that have been fertilized for in vitro fertilization and
decide not to use all of them and want them destroyed, is this
abortion? The word "conception" has to be dealt with in medical
terms, in terms of implantation in the uterus and not
fertilization of an egg.
DR. WHITEFIELD said he has done abortions based on lethal fetal
anomalies, and he has asked patients how they would have felt if
he had provided a pamphlet demonstrating a pregnancy at two week
intervals before the abortion. The response has been that this
would not have been helpful and that it would have caused
emotional trauma.
MS. ROSE MEDEIROS, representing herself, said that she has a
virus called HSV which causes cold sores--painful blisters. For
Ms. Medeiros, HSV creates recurrent and very painful sores and
without treatment she can get as many as two or three blisters a
month. HSV is treatable with antiviral drugs but it is not
curable. Unfortunately, these antiviral drugs cannot be
prescribed to pregnant women because they tend to cause fetal
birth defects. With the definition of pregnancy in SB 300 and HB
329, her doctor will not be able to legally certify that she is
not pregnant, therefore he will not be able to prescribe the
antiviral drugs. SB 300 will take away the only way she has to
control an extremely painful disorder and she asks the committee
to help fix this problem.
Number 1471
MS. LEILA WISE, resident of Anchorage, said she opposes SB 300.
She believes that the decision to have an abortion is personal
and private and should be left to a woman. The provisions of SB
300 are invasive and punitive and are based on inaccurate
information about medical practices and terminology. She is
concerned that the bill will make certain contraceptives illegal.
Since the whole goal of SB 300 is to prevent abortions, she does
not think the committee wants to make contraceptives illegal or
more difficult to obtain.
MS. WISE stated the bill is also intrusive, no other medical
procedure requires a 24-hour waiting period for women and no
other bill punishes women exclusively. All surgical procedures
now require informed consent--abortion included. Informed
consent is not required for the consequences of not choosing an
abortion. Pregnancy is far more dangerous than choosing an
abortion, and if informed consent is required for an abortion it
should then be required for carrying a pregnancy to term so that
women and their families know exactly what will happen or could
happen. People should be educated on all the physical and
emotional consequences of having a baby and they should also be
educated on maternal death as the direct result of continuing a
pregnancy.
MS. WISE said that SB 300 is dangerous. Women in Alaska already
face enormous burdens and challenges in locating abortion
services and having to leave their home to obtain a first
trimester procedure. It is expensive and hard and imposing a 24-
hour waiting period can make it even harder. The waiting period
is a deliberate strategy that has allowed anti-choice extremists
to harass women in other states. They will write down license
plate numbers, follow women home, barrage them and violate their
privacy for the 24 hours before they can go back to the clinic.
MS. WISE claimed this bill dehumanizes women, it patronizes women
and it shames them about a decision they have made. Ms. Wise
strongly urged the committee to vote against this bill because
women are smart enough, responsible enough and capable enough to
make their own choices.
Number 1328
MS. AMY BOLLENBACH, representing herself, asked if information
about the risks of pregnancy and childbirth were included in HB
329.
MR. PAULEY stated that the House did not include any additional
information on this issue when they reported the CS from
committee but the original bill includes reference to this.
MS. BOLLENBACH asked if the language "carrying the unborn child
to term" includes child birth itself. She said it would only be
fair for the bill to include information for both. The bill
talks about photographs of the fetus--there should also be
photographs of women birthing a child. It would also be correct
and fair to show a picture of a woman who has died at child
birth.
MS. BOLLENBACH said that Dr. Nakamura, Ms. Rudinger and Dr.
Whitefield have made all the points she wanted to make. She
stated she is against SB 300, and it is important to remember
that a person has the right to decide what happens to his or her
own body.
Number 1183
SENATOR HALFORD moved to replace the word "conception" on page 5,
line 21 and page 3, line 8 with the word "fertilization." There
being no objection, amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR DONLEY said he was concerned with the fact that women
have to be certified that they are not pregnant before they can
receive certain medications.
DR. NAKAMURA stated that the committee has made the bill even
worse by replacing the word conception with the word
fertilization. Fertilization is not a definition of pregnancy.
SB 300 tends to equate conception, fertilization and pregnancy--
this is impossible to do.
SENATOR HALFORD suggested replacing the word "contraception" with
"implantation" instead of with "fertilization."
DR. NAKAMURA responded that "implantation" would be a more
correct term, at least that is when pregnancy is considered to be
initiated.
Number 978
SENATOR HALFORD moved to rescind the action in adopting the
previous amendment. There being no objection, amendment 1 was
withdrawn.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to include the words "when combined with
implantation" on page 3, line 8 and page 5, line 22. The new
language will read, "'conception' when combined with implantation
means the fusion of a human spermatozoan with a human ovum:."
DR. NAKAMURA said that if the bill was left the way it was, no
woman could undergo any sexual act with a male without total
artificial contraception because there will always be a point at
which a sperm and an egg get together. This will also eliminate
any possibility of taking any medication as precluded in the
event of a pregnancy.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if using the word implantation will allow a
woman to use medication when needed.
DR. NAKAMURA said yes, assuming the woman has the ability to get
a pregnancy test done early, but not everyone has access to early
pregnancy testing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that from what Ms. Medeiros said, her
physician would be unwilling to prescribe medication to her if he
was aware of her being pregnant. So, for a woman of child
bearing age facing this sort of difficulty and the doctor knowing
the adverse effects that the medication may have on such a
person--how is it done today without doing a test?
DR. NAKAMURA said that missing a period is an indication that a
pregnancy has been initiated, which at least gives the woman an
opportunity to seek the test.
Number 698
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was an objection to the earlier
amendment. There being no objection, amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR HALFORD moved CSSB 300(JUD) out of committee with
individual recommendations. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
HB 275-UNIFORM PROBATE CODE/TRUSTS/PROPERTY
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR reminded the committee that testimony was taken
on HB 275 during the March 22 Judiciary Committee meeting.
SENATOR HALFORD moved CSHB 275 with individual recommendations
from committee. With no objection, the motion carried.
HB 318-LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY PROPERTY DISPOSAL
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, sponsor of HB 318, said the state does
not have a law regarding lost property and the return of that
property to the finder. If property is not claimed in one year
the person who found it should be able to claim it.
SENATOR HALFORD moved CSHB 318 with individual recommendations
from committee. With no objection, the motion carried.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|