Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/27/2009 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| HB161 | |
| HB199 | |
| Adjourn | |
| Start | |
| HB127 | |
| HB35 | |
| HB161 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 35
"An Act relating to notice and consent for a minor's
abortion; relating to penalties for performing an
abortion; relating to a judicial bypass procedure for
an abortion; relating to coercion of a minor to have an
abortion; relating to reporting of abortions performed
on minors; amending Rule 220, Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure, and Rule 20, Alaska Probate Rules, relating
to judicial bypass for an abortion; and providing for
an effective date."
2:33:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, provided history of
the legislation and spoke to anticipated amendments.
Representative Gara referred to a request from the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) regarding
the issue of consent from foster parents and guardians.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether Commissioner William Hogan
had designated someone to answer the question.
Representative Coghill did not know the answer. He had
questions regarding how many young teens under foster care
have sought abortions.
2:36:17 PM
Representative Austerman queried the version of the bill
before the committee. Representative Coghill replied that he
had introduced version A as the version that had been
significantly amended in committees during the previous
legislature. He stated that the version was a compromise for
him.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that a previous committee had not
amended the bill.
Representative Foster reported that his rural district was
83 percent Native and that they valued human life. He
referred to historic high fatality rates and how those
affected child rearing in the present. He did not think
there was an issue with abortion in the past and noted that
getting an abortion in the present requires traveling long
distances at high expense. He thought the bill pertained
more to people in urban areas.
2:39:35 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze brought up the issue of amendments.
Representative Gara told the committee that he was open to
feedback and that he did not plan to introduce all the
amendments. He did not believe a fiscal note from DHSS would
change the mind of committee. He referenced statements
during the previous legislature regarding accurate fiscal
notes, and requested one from DHSS before introducing
amendments to the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that DHSS had been asked for the
fiscal note and could not explain why it was not there.
Representative Coghill added that information was needed
regarding how many female foster care teens would be in
state custody and how many have chosen to elect for an
abortion. He pointed out that there are no rules or
restrictions at present related to foster care teens who
seek an abortion, so the state cannot know the numbers.
Co-Chair Stoltze felt that the question was legitimate.
Representative Coghill stated that he was open for
discussion but that time is running out.
2:43:43 PM
Representative Fairclough requested additional information
regarding previous testimony by Dr. Whitefield, specifically
the 48-hour notice for parents and medical complications
that might require a faster abortion.
Representative Coghill replied that the 48-hour waiting
period would be a legal question. He noted the concurrent
nature of the waiting period. He disagreed with the charge
that the waiting period was restrictive and believed that it
allowed for planning and communication. He referred to a
U.S. Supreme Court case regarding the issue, and quoted:
"The 48-hour delay provides the parents the opportunity to
consult with his or her spouse, family physician to inquire
into the competency of the abortion doctor and to discuss
the decision on religious moral implications with the minor,
and provide needed guidance and counsel on how the decision
will affect their future. The delay imposes only a minimal
burden on the minor's rights."
Representative Coghill added that another issue was where
the pregnant teen lived. Whether she lived in an urban or
rural area, the teen would not be able to get a pregnancy
test one day and abortion the next. The process takes three
days; notification follows a similar timeline.
2:47:00 PM
Representative Coghill continued that the emergency medical
issue was a separate legal question. He had asked Dr. Jay
Butler, Alaska's Chief Medical Officer, who believed that
the medical instability mentioned on page 2, line 29 is open
to interpretation by medical doctors. He was open to an
amendment to clarify the language; however, Dr. Butler also
said that the remaining language regarding a doctor's
judgment about what constitutes a medical emergency was very
clear.
Representative Fairclough felt that the medical emergency
language in the bill needed to be revisited to clarify what
a doctor needed to do. She asked about the judicial bypass.
She mentioned public testimonies given regarding pregnancies
caused by incest and questioned the necessity of a second
signature for the judicial bypass.
2:49:59 PM
Representative Coghill directed attention to page 3, which
discusses the issue of minors being a victim of abuse. He
clarified that it was not judicial bypass, but bypass of the
judicial system. A court hearing is not required, only a
signed statement and a witness that is knowledgeable of the
abuse. He stressed that he did not want to create loopholes
for perpetrators. He felt that having a witness to the
signature was wise.
2:51:39 PM
Representative Fairclough shared from personal experience
the difficulty in identifying sexual abuse of a minor
because of delays in reporting and the lack of physical
evidence.
Representative Gara felt that everyone on the committee
would agree about the importance families having open
dialogue about the issues. He had questions about the 48-
hour waiting period, and the court process with the
affidavit. Regarding the 48-hour waiting period, the bill
requires a pregnant minor and her parent to first talk about
the pregnancy and come to a decision. Then the bill requires
the family to wait another day. A family from a rural area
would have to stay in a hotel the two days. He agreed that
the family should talk; he questioned the law requiring them
to wait two days after talking.
2:54:33 PM
Representative Coghill reiterated the concurrent nature of
the waiting period. He thought the question was more
appropriate for families from urban areas. He quoted the
U.S. Supreme Court ruling: "The states' 48-hour waiting
period is necessary to enable notified parents to consult
with their daughters or their physicians so if they so wish
results in a little or no delay, and therefore is
constitutional." He thought the notification was appropriate
to allow for family deliberation.
Representative Gara believed the bill worked if the family
is perfect, but all families are not prefect. He gave a
hypothetical example illustrating the problem with the 48-
hour waiting period. He questioned the family having to wait
after making a decision.
2:56:49 PM
Representative Coghill believed that 48 hours is a small
period of time given the circumstance. He considered the
wait an opportunity for deliberation. He outlined a possible
series of events. He did not think the waiting period was
unreasonable. He thought it was a notification issue.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked that the discussion focus on
amendments.
Representative Gara informed the committee that he would not
offer an amendment on the 48-hour waiting period. He
reiterated his desire for a response from DHSS.
Co-Chair Stoltze agreed that the question was pertinent.
Representative Joule spoke to the importance of fiscal notes
for the Finance Committee. He thought the administration
should provide the information to the committee.
Representative Coghill repeated his commitment to finding
the requested information. He admitted he had not written to
any department head for the fiscal note.
3:02:27 PM AT EASE
3:23:03 PM RECONVENED
WILLIAM HOGAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, apologized to the committee regarding the fiscal
note.
Representative Gara asked for clarification about how the
legislation would apply to foster children, especially
regarding who would give consent.
Commissioner Hogan explained that the state takes over
guardianship and makes decisions either directly or with the
courts in foster care situations where parental rights have
been terminated. If parental rights have not been
terminated, DHSS would continue to work with the guardian or
natural parents to make the best decision regarding the
child.
3:25:35 PM
Representative Coghill added that the minor is free to go to
court without the custodian's knowledge and have someone
assigned to them at no charge, regardless of whether the
parents or the state is the custodian. He thought the real
question is what would happen if the minor seeks to avoid
consent from the state.
Representative Gara reiterated that the bill works for good
families where the minor has support. He was concerned about
the others the bill will affect: the 2,000 children in the
state who are in the foster care system, plus many others in
bad circumstances in their families.
Representative Gara asked whether a minor in foster care
would have to get parental consent if the guardian is still
the parent who is not living with her. Commissioner Hogan
thought the practice would be to talk to the natural
parents.
3:28:00 PM
Representative Coghill explained that the minor could seek
emancipation if a minor in state custody was in a situation
with parents who did not care.
Representative Gara asked how emancipation would occur for a
pregnant minor who has deadlines. Representative Coghill did
not know the details. He did know that a minor must
demonstrate the ability to be self-sufficient in order to
gain emancipation; such a person could seek an abortion
without consent.
Representative Gara asked for further clarification.
Commissioner Hogan explained that the child protective
services system first tries to reunite kids with their
families. When that is not possible, the next step is to
seek placement outside the home. He added that much depends
on the minor's history with the family and noted that all
decisions about the child's status are made through the
court.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if Representative Gara's questions
would lead to an amendment to provide a focus for the
discussion.
3:32:43 PM
Representative Gara stated that his focus was that the bill
has been around for six years and no one has considered how
it would work in a foster care situation. He wanted the
information before he put together an amendment. He did not
want one law for minors with parents that required minors in
foster care to go to court.
Representative Gara asked what would happen for a minor who
is in foster care but the natural parent is still the
guardian. Commissioner Hogan pointed out that the described
situation applies to the typical child who first enters the
foster care system. The state must determine over time if
the family can be reunited. The intent is to keep the family
together if possible.
Representative Gara thought it might be unhealthy to make a
child obtain consent from a parent who does not take care of
her anymore. Commissioner Hogan agreed.
Representative Gara asked if those children would then have
to go to court and wondered if that would be healthy in a
torn family. Commissioner thought the child would have to go
to court. He acknowledged the difficulty of the decision. He
thought the state would go to court but try to make the
process as easy as possible.
3:36:18 PM
Representative Gara asked whether social work staff would be
involved in the process. Commissioner Hogan answered that
social work staff would be involved.
Representative Coghill added that current law provides only
minimal protection. A child abused while in the foster care
system could be coerced by the perpetrator to get an
abortion without anyone's consent, even if the minor is in
state custody. House Bill 35 would provide recourse for the
minor; she can appeal without costs to herself. She can go
directly to a doctor or some other adult and make an appeal
for an abortion.
3:38:01 PM
Representative Gara referred to statistics showing that
approximately 50 percent of youth in foster care end up
pregnant before age 18. Commissioner Hogan thought the
number seemed high and offered to get figures.
Representative Gara speculated that additional staff would
be needed if the statistics were high. Commissioner Hogan
thought that all child protective service workers should
have the skills needed and did not believe the department
would need additional staff. He noted that the department
has increased staff training.
3:39:26 PM
Representative Gara requested clarification regarding the
training. Commissioner Hogan reported that the department
had implemented new training in January 2009.
Representative Gara asked who would be the guardian if
parental rights had been terminated but the minor has not
been assigned a foster care placement.
Commissioner Hogan replied that the state would be the
guardian; regulations would be needed specifying who that
would be. He thought the courts should also be involved.
Representative Gara expressed alarm at a federal review
reporting that social workers do not see youth more than
once every eight months in 30 percent of cases. Commissioner
Hogan did not recognize the exact statistic but agreed that
the state needs to see youth in foster care more often.
Representative Gara wondered if social workers did not know
foster children well in many circumstances. Commissioner
Hogan hoped that the social worker would develop a
relationship with the child.
3:42:17 PM
Representative Gara asked if there were cases where the
social worker did not spend the necessary time. Commissioner
agreed that that does happen on occasion.
Representative Crawford described experience with the foster
care system. In the four years he had a foster child during
an adoption process, the social worker visited once per
year. When they called with questions, they sometimes did
not get an answer for a month. The state had explained that
there is less contact with a stable family; others might
have had real problems. He felt the foster care system was
understaffed and overworked in Alaska.
Commissioner Hogan hoped that the system would respond
better to foster parents and that calls would be returned
promptly. He emphasized the importance of foster families
and apologized.
3:45:55 PM
Representative Crawford emphasized that he was not trying to
fault social workers, but when the timing was as critical as
it would be for a pregnant teen, the system had to respond.
Commissioner Hogan agreed.
Representative Gara pointed out that in his experience
foster youth feel like different rules apply to them. He
asked if there could be psychological damage if a foster
child was told they must go to court. Commissioner Hogan
responded that the state tries to be sensitive to what a
foster child needs and works hard to not make the child feel
different.
3:48:59 PM
Representative Gara wanted a pregnant minor without a stable
family to consult with an adult in making decisions. He
wondered if the emphasis in the legislation could be on
giving notice rather than requiring consent. Commissioner
Hogan pointed out that the bill is about consent, not
notification. He stated that the department supports
Representative Coghill's bill, although it would be willing
to work on language.
3:52:29 PM
MIKE LESMANN, COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER & LEGISLATIVE
CONTACT, OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES, detailed the Alaska statute related to
a parent's residual rights (AS47.10.084). Under residual
rights, birth parents have the right to consent to major
medical procedures. If the child is in state custody, state
staff is absolutely not authorized to consent to a non-
emergency major medical procedure; parents approval are
required unless the parent's rights have been terminated by
the court. If the parent is not willing to give consent, a
court order is required in order for the procedure to take
place.
Representative Coghill added that the parental rights law
did not apply to abortion, which was one of the reasons he
thought HB 35 was necessary. The courts have been trying to
figure out for years how to balance the rights.
3:54:45 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze observed that the bill had not been amended
to date and thought it would be amended on the House floor.
Representative Gara repeated concerns about expecting a
child to obtain consent from a parent who has not been
involved. He did not want a social worker or judge who does
not know the child to be able to override the child's
decision. He wanted a child to have someone rational and
caring to talk to.
Representative Coghill responded that when someone is in
state custody, there is a legal conundrum regarding who
should give consent. However, a minor has the right to
bypass the legal guardian. A judge would consider the
maturity of the minor and the level of stress created by the
circumstances. The judge could be a rational decision maker.
There could be other rational persons, including the social
worker.
3:58:19 PM
Representative Gara wanted to know for the record the
average tenure of a social worker at the Office of
Children's Services. Commissioner Hogan thought a social
worker tended to stay two to two and a half years; after
that length of time, they tended to stay longer. He added
that the vacancy rate was down.
3:59:38 PM
Representative Gara wanted language in the legislation
stipulating that it applied to good families. Representative
Coghill responded that four out of five parts of the bill
are targeted for people in less than good circumstances.
Representative Gara did not like one of the ways to get out
of parental consent, which is to go to a judge that does not
know the child. He also did not like a second way, which
says a child's affidavit is not good enough, that there must
be another witness to the abuse who signs an affidavit.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for amendments. As there were none,
he turned to the fiscal notes.
Commissioner Hogan spoke to fiscal note number 2 by DHSS,
explaining that it was indeterminate because the department
did not know which minors enrolled in Medicaid had consent
from a parent or guardian; the department does not require
consent. He indicated the explanation for costs for
abortions and qualifications connected with the Hyde
amendment. He stressed the difficulty in finding a dollar
amount.
CRAIG TILLERY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
(via teleconference), commented regarding indeterminate
fiscal note number 1 by the Department of Law (LAW). He
explained that LAW does not put anticipated litigation costs
into fiscal notes; the department tried to provide the
committee with information that would give an idea of
potential costs involved with litigation. He opined that
litigation is likely; the last time a similar law was
litigated, LAW ended up spending approximately $500,000 on
the case. Both in-house and outside counsel were used in the
case. In addition, there was a court award of $940,000 to
the prevailing party against the state. He anticipated that
in future the state would make every effort to litigate in-
house. He thought that costs would be in the $300,000 to
$400,000 range. In addition, there would be court award
costs depending on who won the case.
4:04:23 PM
Representative Gara asked if Mr. Tillery had read the bill
and the court opinion declaring the last similar law
unconstitutional. Mr. Tillery responded in the affirmative.
Representative Gara pointed out that the last decision had
determined that the parental consent part of the law was
unconstitutional. He asked if the court might make a similar
determination again about parental consent. Mr. Tillery
responded that it was not a foregone conclusion that the law
would be declared unconstitutional, although he was not
predicting that response again from the court as the vote
was close the last time. House Bill 35 modifies the previous
law in a way that brings the law closer to the majority
opinion that struck it down. In particular, HB 35 adds an
exception, a victim of documented abuse, with respect to
judicial bypass. In terms of time and ability to navigate
the system, HB 35 reduces the time from five business days
to three business days; it also reduces appeal time from
nine days to eight days. The new proposed law also provides
a confidential form for school excuse for a hearing. He
added that at least two of the justices will have changed,
which could affect a new decision.
Representative Gara requested an explanation of the concept
"stare decisis." Mr. Tillery explained that "stare decisis"
indicates that when faced with a similar situation that has
been previously ruled on by a court, the court will continue
with the ruling in order to provide some certainty to the
way people order their affairs, unless the situation has
dramatically changed. Changes could be those in the bill
itself, or changes in social mores. He did not believe stare
decisis would play a large role because the court, by the
very nature of its analysis, would be determining whether
there have been sufficient changes in the law to allow it to
be declared unconstitutional.
4:08:02 PM
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to REPORT HB 35 from Committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
Representative Gara OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Hawker WITHDREW the MOTION.
Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 1:
1. Page 2, lines 3-4:
Following "notice":
Delete "and consent"
2. Page 3, lines 7-8:
Following "performed":
Delete "and the parent, legal guardian, or
custodian has consented in writing to the
performance or inducement of the abortion"
3. Page 3, lines 10-11:
Following "notice":
Delete "and consent"
4. Page 3, lines 13-14:
Following "notice":
Delete "and consent"
5. Page 5, line 5:
Following "to":
Delete "and the consent of"
6. Page 5, line 8:
Following "to":
Delete "or the consent of"
7. Page 5, line 17:
Following "to":
Delete "or the consent of"
8. Page 5, lines 20-21:
Following "notice to":
Delete "or the consent of"
9. Page 5, line 24:
Following "the":
Delete "consent of"
Insert "notice to"
10. Page 6, line 7:
Following "to":
Delete "or the consent of"
11. Page 6, line 11:
Following "such":
Delete "consent"
Insert "notice"
12. Page 6, line 27:
Following "to":
Delete "or the consent of"
13. Page 6, line 30-31:
Following "to"
Delete "or the consent of"
14. Page 8, lines 15-16:
Following "to":
Delete "and the consent of"
15. Page 8, line 25:
Following "to":
Delete "and the consent of"
16. Page 9, line 18:
Following "to":
Delete "and the consent of"
17. Page 9, lines 30-31:
Following "to":
Delete "or the consent of"
Representative Fairclough OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment says it is
fine to give a non-abusive family notice that the minor is
pregnant and seeking an abortion so that the family can
discuss the matter, but that consent is not required in
cases where consent seems impossible, such as from a foster
parent who has not seen the child for two years. Since he
did not know how to word the amendment, Representative Gara
WITHDREW Amendment 1.
Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 2:
Page 3, lines 20-28:
Delete all text.
Co-Chair Hawker OBJECTED.
Representative Gara detailed that Amendment 2 addresses an
exception on page 3 that the child does not have to go to
court if the child is the victim of physical or sexual abuse
but needs a second witness to the abuse. In a small town,
the abusive parent who the child is trying not to tell might
find out. The amendment says that the second witness might
be the abuser or the abuser's spouse; the minor may not be
able to secure the second witness statement. Amendment 2
says the minor's affidavit is enough.
Representative Coghill objected to the amendment. He
asserted that the purpose of the list is to protect the
minor in cases of abuse, and that abusers could pressure a
minor to go to a doctor for an abortion.
4:13:33 PM
Representative Gara clarified that the amendment has to do
with page 3, line 20. He thought all could agree that a
parent who physically abuses a child loses the right to
consent. However, in order for the minor to comply, the
minor must fill out the affidavit and then find someone with
personal knowledge of the abuse. He pointed out that there
may not be another person with personal knowledge to fill
out the second affidavit. He thought requiring the second
witness would make the provision unusable.
4:15:02 PM
Representative Coghill disagreed. He referred to testimony
by people who had reached out to minors and found it
improbable that no one would know about the abuse. His
primary concern was for the minor.
Representative Kelly stated that in a chaotic situation, the
default position is that someone dies; he would opt for the
keeping someone alive. He supported the legislation, while
acknowledging that it is not perfect. He believed DHSS would
help. He placed equal value on the unborn child and the
minor.
4:20:17 PM
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 2. He thought the
problem with the amendment reflected the problem with the
bill. He thought government was bad on how people should
communicate within their home. He stressed that he did not
believe that the victim of any abuse should have the duty to
go to the abuser to get consent for an abortion.
4:21:38 PM AT EASE
4:26:29 PM RECONVENED
Representative Gara indicated that he would not be offering
Amendment 3.
Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 4:
Page 7, line 25:
Following "have":
Insert "or refrain from having"
Co-Chair Hawker OBJECTED.
Representative Gara took issue with Section 9 of HB 35. He
believed it should be a crime to coerce someone to have an
abortion. Coerced is defined as to "restrain or dominate a
minor by force, threat of force, deprivation of food,
support, or shelter." He did not think the committee should
take sides in the pro-life or pro-choice debate; both
forcing someone to have an abortion and forcing someone not
to have an abortion should be a crime. He intended Amendment
4 to balance the bill.
Representative Coghill asserted that the bill's purpose was
regulating abortions, not regulating the decision whether to
have one. He agreed that coercion is bad in many cases, but
did not think the issue was coercion.
Co-Chair Hawker MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
Representative Gara argued that the amendment was
appropriate to the bill, and that the bill was about
abortion. He turned to page 7, line 25, which says that a
person may not coerce a minor who is pregnant to have or
refrain from having an abortion. He agreed with the part of
the bill that wanted families to talk about the issue, but
the amendment did not relate to that part of the bill. He
did not want to create a crime that makes those on the pro-
life side of the issue happy but discriminates against those
on the pro-choice side of the issue. He did not want to
protect minors who decide not to have an abortion and not
protect minors who do decide to have one when the decision
is legal.
4:30:31 PM
Representative Kelly expressed reluctance to force lawyers
on everyone who is counseling the minor against abortion.
Representative Coghill repeated that the bill intends to
protect the minor if she chooses to have the baby. Should
she choose not to have the baby, she would have to
demonstrate maturity. He thought part of the question
related to an immature person choosing to have an abortion.
The amendment would strike at the parental consent part. The
legal question would be that a parent disagreeing with a
minor about having an abortion could be portrayed as
coercion. He maintained that the measure is about the
regulation of abortion.
Representative Coghill argued the legitimacy of the question
of maturity; many other statues address the issue. He read a
statement by the Alaska Association of School Boards on
maturity: "Students who have not yet graduated from high
school are too young to make the life-changing decision to
forego basic education." He maintained that accepting the
amendment would result in a legal challenge to coercion.
4:34:12 PM
Representative Crawford thought it would be wrong to force a
child to have an abortion when she did not want one, but it
would also be wrong to coerce the minor to do what they
wanted by withholding food or shelter. He acknowledged the
difficulty of the issue.
Representative Austerman pointed out that the whole bill
would be legally challenged, not just the part of the bill
that would be affected by the amendment.
Representative Coghill reported that he had been told by the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Planned Parenthood
that they definitely intended to challenge the measure. He
stressed that he did not like coercion, but maintained that
the section of the bill addressed by the amendment relates
to coercion and opens the door to legal challenge.
4:38:50 PM
Representative Gara asserted that the bill would be
challenged.
Representative Coghill did not think the issue was so clear.
He read part of the Supreme Court decision saying that the
relocation of fundamental right from minors to parents is
"constitutionally suspect." He thought the court was very
definite that the parents had the right and definite that
the minors are immature in their choices. The Supreme Court
was looking for less restrictive means; he believed less
restrictive means were crafted into HB 35.
Representative Gara understood the philosophical points, but
pointed out that the amendment was narrower. He did not
believe it was right to have a law that made it a crime if a
person was coerced into having an abortion, but would not
stand behind a person who is coerced to not have a legal
abortion. He asserted that the amendment says that either
kind of coercion should be illegal.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Crawford, Gara, Joule, Salmon, Austerman
OPPOSED: Fairclough, Foster, Kelly, Thomas, Stoltze, Hawker
The MOTION FAILED (5-6).
4:43:03 PM
Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 5:
Page 2, line 27:
Following "death":
Insert "or a substantial risk to the minor's
health"
Page 2, line 28-30:
Delete all text.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained that the bill has a provision
that says that in the case of a medical emergency, the
doctor can perform an abortion to save the minor from
physical harm or death. He thought the wording was
difficult. On line 29, the bill says that the physical harm
that would be avoided must be proved to be irreversible. He
asserted that a doctor cannot always know if the injury is
irreversible; a doctor could be subject to criminal
prosecution. The amendment would clarify that in a medical
emergency, an abortion can be performed if necessary to
prevent death, or to prevent serious risk to the minor's
health.
Representative Coghill responded that he would object less
to the amendment if it said to "physical health" so that it
would not be open to a subjective interpretation.
Representative Gara agreed and offered an amendment to
Amendment 5, to insert the word "physical" before "health."
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if there was continued objection to
Amendment 5 as amended.
Representative Kelly OBJECTED.
Representative Coghill stated that he would not speak
against the amendment.
Representative Kelly WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Amendment 5 as amended was PASSED.
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED CSHB (FIN) 35 from Committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
4:49:51 PM
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion. He thought the
main part of the bill presents legitimate discussion. He
wanted minors to discuss matters such as abortion with their
parents. However, he did not know how a law could be written
to require families to talk to one another, especially when
the family is dysfunctional or when the minor does not have
a family. He had concerns about foster children in
particular. He took issue with a provision in the bill that
states that there has to be a 48-hour wait after a parent
consents to a minor's abortion. He pointed out that
legislative researchers reported that there is no 48-hour
waiting period for any other procedure in Alaska. He thought
the provision was disrespectful to the parent's choice. He
reiterated concerns about the second person required to sign
an affidavit.
4:52:44 PM
Representative Kelly agreed that the bill was a very
difficult one. He opined that the default position should be
choosing life and not death in a confusing and chaotic
situation. He thought the sponsor had found a balance.
Representative Joule thought the issue was highly charged
and he appreciated the respectful tone of the debate.
4:55:13 PM
Representative Crawford concurred that the issue is tough.
He discussed his views of abortion and the topic of when
life begins. He pointed out that there were abortions before
it was made legal, and conjectured that there would still be
abortions if they were made illegal. He believed that
Planned Parenthood had reported that there were 18 in the
past year that HB 35 would have covered; 14 of the girls had
involved parents and 4 did not. He feared that HB 35 would
force the four to have underground abortions and questioned
whether the bill would fix the problem it was purporting to
fix. He emphasized his desire to pass legislation that would
not have unintended negative consequences.
4:59:40 PM
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB (FIN) 35 was REPORTED out of Committee with a no
recommendations and two previously published fiscal notes:
FN1 (LAW), FN2 (HSS).
Representative Foster noted that in the Bush, hospitals fall
under federal guidelines and are exempt from state
regulations. The doctors and nurses answer to other laws. He
wondered if Bush hospitals still operate this way.
Co-Chair Hawker noted that Commissioner Hogan would get a
formal response to the question.
5:02:08 PM AT EASE
5:12:00 PM RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| A M E N D M E N T 1 - Gara.doc |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| A M E N D M E N T 2 - Gara.doc |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| CSHB161 Explanation of Changes from (H)CRA.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| Exec Budg Act-HB127-detailed comments 3-23-09.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| AK Railroad briefing.ppt |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| AMHTA Subport HB161 Admin Briefing Paper 3 24 09.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| Blank Rome memo to ARRC 032309.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| A M E N D M E N T 3 - Gara.doc |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| A M E N D M E N T 4 - Gara.doc |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| A M E N D M E N T 5 - Gara.doc |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| CSHB161(CRA)-DOR-TRS-03-27-09FN Corrected.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| DHSS Response 033009.doc |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 35 |
| HB127 Letter AK Miners Assoc..pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| HB127 Opposition Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| HB127_Sponsor_Stmt.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| HB161 SPONSOR STATEMENT.mht |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Labor Bldg. Lease Costs.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| Rep Millet Response from Dept of Admin.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| Rep Millet Response from The Land Trust.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| Rep. Millet Questions.pdf |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| Subport Architect Presentation.ppt |
HFIN 3/27/2009 1:30:00 PM |
HB 161 |