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