Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
03/14/2024 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
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 | |
| Board of Direct Entry Midwives | |
| HB363 | |
| HB187 | |
| HB205 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 363 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 205-CRIMINALIZE ABORTION; PRIVACY; COURTS
5:12:35 PM
CHAIR PRAX announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act interpreting the right to privacy
under art. I, sec. 22, Constitution of the State of Alaska;
defining 'abortion,' 'birth,' 'child,' 'conception,' 'natural
person,' and 'preborn child'; relating to civil actions and
liability under the Act; relating to murder of a child;
repealing abortion procedures; amending the definition of
'person' for crimes against a person; repealing murder of an
unborn child and penalties and provisions related to that crime;
relating to the powers of guardians; relating to powers of
attorney for health care decisions; relating to regulation of
abortion; relating to medical treatment for minors; relating to
relocation of a child; relating to the office of public
advocacy; repealing medical assistance payment for abortions;
relating to duties of the attorney general; relating to the
limitation on the use of assets; and providing for an effective
date."
5:13:10 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:13 p.m. to 5:16 p.m.
5:16:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID EASTMAN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 205. He explained that the bill is also
referred to as the "Life at Conception Act" and "Preborn Child
Equality Act of 2024" and deals with the constitutional rights
of children.
5:17:10 PM
PAT MARTIN, Outreach Director, Alaska Right to Life, gave
invited testimony in support of HB 205. He began his testimony
by drawing attention to an article in a 1965 issue of Life
Magazine and proffering that the article anticipated Alaska
Right to Life's overarching theory that life begins at
conception. He explained the article was published seven years
before Roe v. Wade, and in the magazine issue "there are
articles which were very publicly published, and these indicate
that in 1965 we had the scientific knowledge that life begins at
conception and, in fact, we had not just the knowledge that life
begins at conception, but we had actual imagery that life begins
at conception."
MR. MARTIN referred to the committee's previous consideration of
a healthcare bill, using that to bolster his major points. He
purported the following [bullet-pointed for clarity]:
• Performing an abortion is murder.
• The act of performing an abortion falls under the
heading of healthcare.
• When an egg and a sperm meet, life begins.
• An individual human being in the womb is alive but
separate from the mother.
• An individual human being is killed during an
abortion, no matter what the stage of gestation.
• Whether the fetus is eight days or six weeks it is an
individual human being that is alive.
• The constitution gives an inherent right to equality
and equal protection under the law.
• Equal right to protection under the law applies to a
fetus.
• The Alaska constitution and Alaska judicial system are
in conflict regarding the right to life of an unborn
child.
• Children in the womb deserve to be protected from
violence.
• We make it legal for doctors to murder a child in the
womb and pay them to do so.
• We pay for abortions because our tax dollars pay for
half of the abortions performed in Alaska.
• In 1969 Senator Rayder moved to Alaska from California
and introduced bills legalizing abortion until one
finally passed and became law after a 2/3 vote by the
legislature to override the governor's veto.
• It has been known for 800 years that abortions kill.
• We ignore science and wantonly legalize killing babies
in the womb.
• Alaska's supreme court has a duty and the authority to
create new constitutional rights.
• Our constitutions are designed to recognize the rights
that are given to us from God.
• The legislature and the people can change the Alaska
constitution to recognize the rights of the unborn.
• Alaska's supreme court has determined that abortion is
a fundamental right, but the court does not have the
authority to make that determination.
• The Alaska courts have said reproductive rights are
unamenable, but they technically lack the authority to
make that determination.
• A child's health is not a concern in abortion
jurisprudence in the state of Alaska.
• We deny the health of the life of a child when we say
a woman can kill him [sic].
• A brutal gruesome brutal death is not good for the
health of a child.
• Anyone advocating for abortion in Alaska does so with
total disregard for the health of the child as well as
disregard for the existence of the child.
• The statute that governs abortion in Alaska doesn't
mention the child; it says the process is a
termination of pregnancy.
• One of the results of the Dobbs decision is that
states can determine abortion policy.
MR. MARTIN, as part of his discourse, proffered as proof that a
being in the womb is alive by purporting that blood
transfusions, open heart surgery, and spinal bifida surgeries
have been performed on children in the womb. He also alleged
that there were active murder cases in Alaska in which men were
being prosecuted for killing babies in the womb. He described
several of these cases, explaining that in one instance the baby
in the womb was murdered by another man when it was 36 weeks.
He added, "In some of these cases, the mothers died in the
process as well." He also drew the committee's attention to the
phrase "reproductive rights," characterizing it as abortion
activism. He claimed that in 1997 abortion advocates and
activists "created out of whole cloth, out of thin air, a right
for a woman to kill her child in total violation of that child's
constitutional rights to life, to equality among persons, and
equal protections under the law."
5:32:03 PM
CHAIR PRAX responded by commenting on the Roe v. Wade and the
Dobbs decision and stated that these were huge matters.
MR. MARTIN asked Chair Prax to enter a set of petitions into the
record, specifying that there were 4,822 signed petitions.
5:36:04 PM
RICHARD CLAYTON TROTTER, General Counsel, Justice Foundation,
gave invited testimony in support of HB 205. He described his
background and how it relates to HB 205, explaining that the
Justice Foundation filed four briefs in the Dobbs decision and
that the foundation has approximately 5,000 related cases. He
explained that he has copies of testimony from Alaska post-
aborted women and women from all over the United States which he
would be happy to provide to the committee. He noted that some
of the stories would bring a person to tears, relating one story
about a woman who terminated a pregnancy and has spent the
subsequent years "lamenting and grieving over" the child she
thought she murdered in her own womb.
MR. TROTTER continued his testimony by describing one of his
briefs which said that a person is a person no matter how small
and quoted Dr. Suess. He described the continuum of conception
to birth, explaining that barring unforeseen circumstances such
as being shot or killed, the child will be born into the world
and become a human being. He went on to tell the story of a
person known as Hannah S, who never occupied her mother's womb
as a baby but instead started life as an egg that came out of
her mother's womb and was placed in a petri dish and frozen for
2 1/2 years and then the egg was fertilized. The fertilized egg
was subsequently stored for 2 1/2 years; thawed out and put in a
woman's womb; and was born "in the regular way" nine months
later. She is now a graduate of Baylor University in the
graduate school of Social Studies, and her goal is to stand up
for in vitro babies. He explained that during the Dobbs
deliberations, she was waving her hands in the air figuratively
saying, "I'm alive! I'm alive! I was alive for two years
frozen."
MR. TROTTER opined that modern technology is proving, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that life begins at conception and that every
time an embryo in a petri dish is destroyed, a human being is
murdered or man slaughtered. He touched upon the recent Alabama
statute regarding in vitro fertilization and again emphasized
that life begins at conception. The Dobbs case said that Roe v.
Wade and the Casey decision must be overturned and that abortion
is not a constitutional right. He went on to say the people
elected as representatives of each state must be allowed to
determine their laws on the issue. He emphasized to the
committee that it was up to citizens to persuade one another and
then go vote. It therefore becomes the purview of the committee
and the legislature to make decisions protecting the life of the
unborn. He then reviewed findings of the Dobbs case as it
related to the Alaska court system and the Alaska legislature,
discussing who, in his view, had the authority to make such
judgments.
MR. TROTTER commented that the state recently voted down having
a constitutional convention saying he understood there was a lot
of outside money influencing Alaska voters. He described the
Alaska Supreme Court and the [1997] Valley Hospital case and how
rational basis review was not the standard that should have been
applied. He expressed appreciation to the committee for hearing
his testimony, closing with a final comment about how the
aforementioned Hannah S stands as proof of his primary
hypothesis.
5:51:13 PM
ROBERT M. BIRD, Past President, Alaska Right to Life, gave
invited testimony in support of HB 205. He described his
background as a political candidate, a retired schoolteacher,
and a radio talk show host. He began his testimony by
describing the Alaska Constitution and the Alaska Supreme Court.
He posited that the Supreme Court could make decisions regarding
Alaska cases relevant to the constitution. The courts can then
reverse those decisions regarding the constitution in such a way
that they can say whatever they want about what it means which
basically results in there being no Alaska Constitution at all.
He pointed out that people say the constitution is a living
document, but it is not alive. It is dead. He that the Supreme
Court can do unconstitutional things and opined that the idea of
three co-equal branches of government is nonsense. He referred
to a section of Federalist No. 45, [an essay in the Federalist
Papers series written by James Madison and published in 1788],
which he interpreted as saying the US Supreme Court is of
absolutely no use and their decisions depend entirely on an
executive enforcing its opinion.
MR. BIRD continued by saying that there was a "blatant, obvious,
impeachable offense" that goes way back to Article 1, Section
22, the Right to Privacy, which was added to the state
constitution in 1972. He pointed out the language that gave the
legislature the right to implement or define the right to
privacy. He questioned the limits of the right to privacy,
purporting that the courts "absconded their duty to intercept
the definition of where the right to privacy should be limited,"
and so abortion came to be defined as a privacy right. "As
such, any ability of the legislature to restrict abortion has to
go according to the whims of the judiciary."
5:55:33 PM
CHAIR PRAX reminded Mr. Bird that the House Health and Social
Services Standing Committee was focusing on the health aspects
of the issue and that the House Judiciary Standing Committee
would consider the legal aspects.
MR. BIRD responded that he did not think he was going to be
asked about the health aspects. He went on to point out that if
HB 205 did not have some sort of rider on it saying that "this
statute shall not be reviewable by the judiciary," then the
judiciary would simply fall back on its own established case
law. He quoted Article 4, Section 1, which states that "the
jurisdiction of the courts shall be proscribed by law," which
means that the legislature does, in fact, have the right and the
ability to keep the judiciary's hands off whatever statute
emerges.
5:57:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked whether it would prevent enforcement
of the law by the courts if a section was added which said the
law should not be reviewed by the judiciary.
MR. BIRD responded that courts do not enforce laws; the
executives do. He referred again to the Valley Hospital case,
using that to advance his theories concerning the right to
enforce laws pertaining to abortion and how that is the purview
of the executive branch not the courts.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked for clarification regarding whether
such a section would prevent courts from adjudicating a murder
charge subsequent to the passage of HB 205.
MR. BIRD responded that the courts could adjudicate and pass on
the opinions, but enforcement is up to the executives. He
referred to Abe Lincoln's inaugural address of 1861 when he
spoke out against the Dredd Scott decision having the courts
strike down laws as being unconstitutional. He posited that it
is a false tradition that all court decisions have to be obeyed.
5:59:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked whether Mr. Bird had read through
HB 205, particularly the language in Sections 5 and 6, which
states that "this chapter is not subject to judicial review".
MR. BIRD said he supports that part of the bill. He then stated
that the Alaska Pipeline would never have been built unless in
1972, Congress had placed the construction of the pipeline under
such an override.
6:00:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked for further clarification regarding
whether such a section would prevent the court from taking up
the previously mentioned murder prosecutions.
MR. BIRD suggested that such a section in statute would make it
non-reviewable. He cautioned that an executive could choose not
to enforce certain elements of any law he doesn't like;
therefore, it is an imperfect section.
6:02:20 PM
MR. MARTIN brought up Representative Sumner's previous question
and explained that the section in HB 205 on judicial review
would not hinder criminal prosecution. Rather, the language is
to protect against judicial activism, but in the case of someone
who performs an illegal abortion, the prosecution of that person
would be protected.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said that answered his question.
6:03:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN summarized the points made by the
witnesses and commented that "we have the science, it's
established, and there is very little question about that." He
concluded that the questions from decades ago are now resolved,
thus, he opined, it is time for "our statutes" to catch up with
"our science."
6:04:50 PM
CHAIR PRAX announced that HB 205 was held over.