Legislature(1997 - 1998)
1997-05-01 House Journal
Full Journal pdf1997-05-01 House Journal Page 1434 HB 65 The following letter, dated April 30, 1997, was received: "Dear Speaker Phillips: Under the authority of art. II, sec. 15, of the Alaska Constitution, I have vetoed the following bill: HOUSE BILL NO. 65 am An Act relating to partial-birth abortions. The effects of this bill have been profoundly misrepresented and therefore, are widely misunderstood. While HB 65 purports to restrict a single, late-term abortion procedure, it is so vague it will criminalize even some of the most common, early abortion procedures. Since the United States and Alaska constitutions protect a womans right to choose until the third trimester of pregnancy, clearly HB 65 is unconstitutional. This bill also makes felons out of physicians and, by refusing to consider a womans health, the Legislature has passed a bill which is neither consistent with the U.S. Constitution nor sound public policy. Clearly, this bill is an attack on the constitutional rights of Alaskan women. 1997-05-01 House Journal Page 1435 HB 65 HB 65 is flawed in many ways. First, since it fails to define an identifiable medical procedure recognized by the medical community, the bill is subject to wide misinterpretation and could prohibit doctors from completing safe and effective medical procedures. Second, it is unconstitutional because it prohibits consideration of either the viability of a fetus or the health of a mother. Finally, the bill violates a basic right Alaskans cherish deeply - the right to privacy. The personal decision about whether to choose abortion should be left to a woman and her doctor. Few Alaskans want the state Legislature dictating medical operating room procedures. This legislation purports to ban a medical procedure referred to in the bill as a "partial birth abortion." In fact, there is no such procedure, nor does the definition provided in this legislation define an actual medical procedure, according to the Alaska Medical Board. The Board opposes this bill because of the vagueness of the definition and because this vagueness would adversely affect a physicians ethical obligations to provide the safest procedure possible to a patient. Physicians may begin a surgical procedure expecting a certain outcome, only to discover during the procedure they may need to change course to protect the health or life of the patient. This bill restricts a physician from providing the safest and most effective treatment. The bills vague terminology could make a felon of a physician trying to provide a patient the best possible care, subjecting that doctor to five years in jail, a $50,000 fine, and loss of a professional medical license. The bill also is unconstitutional because it fails to recognize a womans health as a reason to have an abortion. If a mother in late pregnancy discovers her fetus is not viable, because no specific medical procedure has been defined by this bill, she may not be allowed to choose an abortion even if other options present a grave risk to her own health. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states must allow for exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother. This bill fails to meet that constitutional test. 1997-05-01 House Journal Page 1436 HB 65 The bill represents an unwarranted intrusion into the practice of medicine and into the constitutionally protected privacy rights of Alaskans. The State Medical Board, composed of doctors and public members, is the appropriate entity to establish reasonable, medically- based regulations on this and any other medical procedure. It is inappropriate, irresponsible and widely opposed by Alaskans to allow the Legislature or any other political entity to dictate medical procedures. Alaskans feel strongly about our personal privacy. In fact, we believe in our right to privacy so much that in 1972, we amended our state Constitution to provide Alaskans broader constitutional protections to individual privacy than are included in the U.S. Constitution. To me, this bill infringes on the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed every Alaskan by inserting the Legislature in a decision which appropriately belongs to a woman and her doctor. For these reasons, I have vetoed HB 65. Sincerely, /s/ Tony Knowles Governor"