Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/20/2024 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR13 | |
| HB107 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 358 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 107-CRIMINAL LAW DEFINITIONS PERSON/LIFE
1:49:49 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 107, "An Act relating to criminal law
definitions."
1:50:13 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:50:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 107, Version 33-LS0482\U, C. Radford,
3/19/24, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY objected.
1:50:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCABE, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, prime sponsor of HB 107, introduced himself for the
record.
1:51:14 PM
JULIE MORRIS, Staff, Representative Kevin McCabe, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative McCabe, prime sponsor
of HB 107, presented the written explanation of changes in the
proposed CS for HB 107, Version U [included in the committee
packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Title change: Version U includes the definition of
"person" in Alaska Statute and provides for an
effective date.
Section 1: is a new section amending AS
01.10.060(a)(8) to include or a human entity that has
the moral right of self-determination; "person" does
not include an environmental element, artificial
intelligence, animal, or inanimate object:
Section 2: page 1 line 11-12 amends AS
11.81.900(b)(47) or a human entity that has the moral
right of self-determination.
Lines 13-14 includes new language "person" does not
include an environmental element, artificial
intelligence, animal, or inanimate object:
Section 3: Page 2 line 3 the word human is added.
Section 4: No changes
Section 5: Provides for an effective date as July 1,
2024
1:52:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER questioned the difference between a
"natural person" and a "human entity."
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said they are virtually the same thing.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER expressed concern that down the road,
there could be fully autonomous artificial intelligence (AI)
programs that may not be held to account. He asked whether it
would be advisable to grant sufficiently advanced AI programs
personhood to hold them criminally liable if they were to
autonomously kill someone.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE conceded that AI is moving fast, hence the
reason for the AI language in the bill, which would require
further clarification in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked whether an amendment [that would
grant sufficiently advanced AI programs personhood] would be
considered hostile by the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he would be open to it.
1:55:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared her understanding that under
current law, if a pregnant woman was murdered, the killer could
be prosecuted for murdering both the mother and the unborn baby.
She questioned the purpose of the proposed legislation if
current protections were already in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE described the absence of a statutory
definition of "life" as an oversight, which the bill seeks to
correct.
1:58:45 PM
CLAIRE RADFORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, in
response to Representative Allard, explained that AS 11.41.150
AS 11.41.170 would cover the manslaughter or criminally
negligent homicide of an unborn child. She clarified that HB
107 would not impact the current charging structure of homicide
or murder of an unborn child.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD sought to confirm that the bill would be
helpful in prosecutions.
MR. RADFORD directed the question to the Department of Law
(DOL).
2:00:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether the statutory definition of
"alive" is considered a definition of "life."
MS. RADFORD shared her understanding that the definition of
"alive" within the definition of "person" under AS 11.41.140
would not establish a definition of "life."
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how someone could be alive without
having life.
MS. RADFORD reiterated that there is a distinction between the
definition of "alive" and the definition of "life."
2:02:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked how the bill would impact the murder
of a pregnant woman if the baby were to survive.
MS. RADFORD responded that in that scenario, there would only be
one prosecutorial offense for homicide.
2:03:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY maintained his objection to the adoption of
Version U.
2:03:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether it was the bill sponsor's
contention that the legislation would have no effect on the
litigation of abortion in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that was not for him to say. He
maintained that the bill would simply define "life."
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked what the bill sponsor hoped for the
bill to accomplish.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that he hoped it would give the
courts a path forward should they need it in defining abortion
as illegal in the state of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether the state had engaged in
litigation over abortion before.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE remarked, "As far as I know, it was even
pre-Roe v. Wade where the courts erroneously, in many people's
opinion, leaned on the definition of privacy in our constitution
as saying that abortion was illegal."
REPRESENTATIVE GROH reported that the state had spent an
estimated $4.2 million losing lawsuits related to abortion. He
asked whether the passage of HB 107 would tip the scales and
make it more likely for the state to win these lawsuits.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE answered, "Absolutely." He said he hoped
it would save the state money in that respect and save the state
money in the aborted children who could have been part of the
workforce.
2:06:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his understanding that the purpose of
the bill was to define "life" in statute, not to add additional
crimes or civil penalties to state law.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE answered, "Absolutely."
2:07:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked whether "human" should be defined in
the bill, as there are certain human-defined cell lines that are
used extensively in medical research and may qualify under the
proposed definition of life.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he would be happy to entertain an
amendment.
2:08:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, in wrap up, read from the following
prepared remarks [original punctuation provided]:
Life is defined as the condition that distinguishes
animals and plants from inorganic matter. We know that
"life" includes the capacity for growth, reproduction,
functional activity, and continual change.
Consider that there is no such thing as "dark" e.g.,
you cannot flip a switch and have dark. Instead, we
flip a switch and have light; DARK is merely the
absence of light.
Much like "Dark," death is defined, in many
dictionaries as well as the Bible, not as it's own
condition, but as the absence of life.
So, a fetus who dies in the womb, via a miscarriage or
other means would have to have been recognized to be
alive, a living person or human being, before it can
actually "die" in the womb.
Doctor Horatio R. Storer said: "Allowing, then, as
must be done, that the ovum does not originate in the
uterus; that for a time, however slight, during its
passage through the Fallopian tube, its connection
with the mother is wholly broken; that its subsequent
history after impregnation is one merely of
development, its attachment merely for nutrition and
shelter - it is not rational to suppose that its total
independence, thus once established, becomes again
merged into total identity, however temporary."
(Horatio R. Storer M.D., LL.B., Criminal Abortion
(1868))
The logic of Dr. Storer's conclusion is irrefutable
the life of the unborn Human Being begins independent
of the mother's body. If we follow the science (as we
have been told to do incessantly in the last several
years), it is illogical to conclude that the life of
the pre-born Human Being, which was previously
independent of the mother, ceases to exist during the
time that he or she is in the womb. In other words,
the egg, and the sperm, which are now combined, and
subdividing are an independent life and do not
terminate just because they have attached to the
mother for nurturing and support.
Other scientists such as Keith Moore say: "[The
Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a
sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.
Human development begins at fertilization, the process
during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a
female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell
called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent
cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique
individual." (The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. &
T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders
Company, 1998), 2-18)
Again, when a male sperm meets a female egg, both
cease to exist independently and are combined as a
living human being in the earliest stage of
development - conception. Every major textbook on the
subject used in medical schools teaches this. This new
life has separate DNA and is completely and totally
separate from the mother.
Furthermore, the independent life of the pre-born
child is again proven by the fact that it is the pre-
born child who initiates implantation into the womb.
"The mother's body is entirely passive in the
implantation process. It merely responds to the
actions taken by the unborn Human Being." (Adam
Schauf, M.D., "The Growth of the Placenta," American
Gynecology (1903), 94)
Finally, our recent scientific and medical
implantation of pre-born, and subsequent birth of
children, who developed outside their biological
mother's womb, legitimizes the claim that the pre-born
are an independent life. If being pregnant was only a
function of the woman's reproduction organs, then
implanting, carrying to term, and successful birth
would be impossible outside of the womb. The mere
fact that we can do this, even in surrogates,
demonstrates that the pre-born child is not just a
product of the woman's reproductive system, but is an
independent, living human being.
The Alaska Constitution Article 1, Section 1 says
"This constitution is dedicated to the principles that
all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the
pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards
of their own industry; that all persons are equal and
entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and
protection under the law; and that all persons have
corresponding obligations to the people and to the
State.
Every person's right to life must be protected by the
state regardless of age, level of dependency,
citizenship or even viability. This right is a
natural right granted by the Creator, and unable to be
alienated by the laws of the state.
If this right is to be protected for all persons
within the state of Alaska then this protection cannot
be denied to any person, or human being, for any
reason, not even the pre-born.
It is further unlawful for a state to have a viability
test, to determine whether a person's right to life is
worthy of protection. According to the Alaska
Constitution every human being's right to life is to
be protected, without exception.
In United States v. Cruikshank, the justices wrote:
The rights of life and personal liberty are natural
rights of man. 'To secure these rights,' says the
Declaration of Independence, 'governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed.' The very highest duty of
the States, when they entered into the Union under the
Constitution, was to protect all persons within their
boundaries in the enjoyment of these 'unalienable
rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.'
Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the
States."
In a 2007 Supreme Court case known as Gonzales v.
Carhart, SCOTUS opined that the unborn child is a
living individual separate and distinct from his
mother. A preborn individual Human Being if you will.
In this decision, the Court did not consider the
preborn child to be merely a part of the mother's
body.
In another case known as Bonbrest v. Kotz which was
heard in United States District Court for the District
of Columbia, Justice McGUIRE stated: "From the
viewpoint of the civil law and the law of property, a
child en ventre sa mere (means in the mother's womb)
is not only regarded as human being, but as such from
the moment of conceptionwhich it is in fact."
In the Supreme court case known as Marbury v. Madison
the Supremes wrote: "The very essence of civil liberty
certainly consists in the right of every individual to
claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives
an injury. . . . The government of the United States
has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and
not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this
high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for
the violation of a vested legal right." That decision
cemented the individuality of the preborn child and
guarantees him or her a civil right to claim the
protection of the law; this would include the right to
privacy found in the Alaska Constitution.
In another SCOTUS case, known as Reed v Reed, the
Justices wrote: "The Equal Protection Clause of that
amendment [referring to the 14th amendment] does,
however, deny to States the power to legislate that
different treatment be accorded to persons placed by a
statute into different classes on the basis of
criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of that
statute. A classification must be reasonable, not
arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of
difference having a fair and substantial relation to
the object of the legislation, so that all persons
similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike."
What that means is that The State of Alaska, under our
constitution, does not have the authority to deny the
protection of the law to a single class of individuals
such as our preborn children. However, the
constitution and current statutes in Alaska, grant the
full protection of the law to all children except
those that are aborted. According to Reed v. Reed,
this exception is a violation of the 14th amendment of
the Constitution of the United States.
In Roe v. Wade, Justice Potter Stewart asked the pro-
abortion attorney Sarah Weddington this question: "If
it were established that an unborn fetus is a person
within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you
would have an almost impossible case here would you
not?" Mrs. Weddington replied, "I would have a very
difficult case." Justice Blachmun then wrote, in the
majority decision: "If this suggestion of personhood
is established, the appellant's case, of course,
collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be
guaranteed by the 14th
Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Supreme Court's
majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health
Organization on Friday that Roe was "egregiously wrong
from the start."
Our Declaration of Independence says "We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Throughout the years, various court cases have set
precedence that the word "MEN," in that document
includes all people; people of color, people of other
races and nationalities as well as both genders.
It is time we define "persons" for the purpose of our
constitution. It is time to follow the science; to
open our eyes and hearts and recognize the person-hood
of the pre-born. It is time to fix our statutes and
this bill does that.
2:18:42 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Carpenter, C.
Johnson, Sumner, Allard, and Vance voted in favor of adopting
Version U as the working document. Representatives Groh and
Gray voted against it. Therefore, Version U was adopted by a
vote of 5-2.
CHAIR VANCE announced that CSHB 107, Version U, would be held
over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 107 - Proposed CS v.U.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB 107 - Explanation of Changes for CS v. B to v.U.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB 107 - Letters of Support (03-22-24).pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |
| HB 107 - Letters of Opposition (03-22-24).pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 107 |