Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/06/1997 02:30 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL 234
"An Act relating to assistance for abortions under the
general relief program; and relating to financial
responsibility for the costs of abortions."
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN explained that HB 234 would
provide a new measure of logic and consistency to the
State's abortion law in two areas; first, in establishing
the procedure's priority on the official list of medical
procedures the State will pay for under the General Relief
Medical (GRM) program; and second, by creating a mechanism
by which the State can identify and hold financially
responsible the would-be father. He added, it is not
logical that an elective procedure such as an abortion
should continue to hold a higher priority to other more
essential services.
HB 234 would have the State require payment from the
pregnant woman, either partially or in full, for an elective
abortion if it had been paid for under the General Relief
Medical Program. HB 234 would require that the male
responsible for the pregnancy be identified and held
financially responsible for an abortion sought under the
General Relief Medical Program. Currently, under Title 47,
the State requires a woman seeking financial assistance from
the State to identify the father or her dependent children.
The State then recovers any costs it can from the father
through the Child Support Enforcement Division.
Representative Martin thought that it was logical that if a
father of a born child should reimburse the State, so should
the father of an unborn child.
Representative Martin pointed out that HB 234 would
represent a new bench mark in requiring accountable parties
to accept the full responsibility for their actions. If we
are to continue to have a policy in Alaska of publicly-
funded abortion, Representative Martin stressed that the
State should do all it can to collect from the responsible
persons.
PETER NAKAMURA, M.D., MPH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC
HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, noted that
the Department strongly opposes the proposed legislation.
He indicated that the bill would be harmful, speaking to the
historical problems during the times when there was no
3
medical access to abortion. Hospital rooms were then
responsible for addressing the "back yard" results of self
induced abortions. At this time, any abortion procedure is
safer than a normal delivery. He asserted that to remove
access to the services, would force the State back into the
"dark ages".
KRISTEN BOMENGEN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, HUMAN SERVICES
SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, spoke to the constitutional
issues raised by the legislation. The effect of the bill
would eliminate abortion funding which raises a
constitutional inquiry. If the funding was restored to the
relief medical services spectrum, it would give rise to a
subsequent constitutional issue requiring that the woman
reveal the name of her sexual partner in order to receive
the service.
Section 3 of the bill separates out abortion services from
all other pregnancy related services and places it into the
list of items eliminated from funding. Ms. Bomengen pointed
out that to date, the Alaska State Courts have not addressed
abortion issues directly. In other states which have
explicate privacy protection, provide for pregnancy related
services in a constitutionally neutral manner.
She noted that it was the Department of Law's belief that
the effect of the legislation's language would place
impermissible burdens upon a woman's option to choose to
terminate the pregnancy.
She continued, if funding was fully restored for all general
relief services, or if a constitutional challenge was
required for the State to offer all pregnancy related
services equally, at that time, Section 2 of the bill would
be addressed. That section provides that the woman name the
sexual partner in order to receive medical services from the
State. The Department understands that the woman's choice
not to provide the name of her sexual partner is a protected
right. There are many reasons that a woman would not want
to have the name released. In response to Representative
Kelly's request, Ms. Bomengen explained that the male
involved often needs to be sought in order to be identified.
Ms. Bomengen provided some reasons why a woman would choose
not to identify the male partner. Co-Chair Therriault
advised that the State provides the funds for the service
and has the right to recoup those costs. Ms. Bomengen
agreed that the State does have the right to recoup costs as
established in the bill. However, given the cost of the
procedure, the State would be able to recoup their cost
solely through the woman's permanent fund check. Given the
4
current value of that check, the State would have recouped
costs from the woman's check. Requiring her to reveal
information that she may not wish to reveal, could result in
constitutional problems.
Discussion followed between Representative Martin and Ms.
Bomengen regarding the number of other states which pay for
abortions. Ms. Bomengen agreed that all states are not
constitutionally required to pay for an abortion. The State
can not discourage the right to exercise a constitutional
right based on religious or moral hostility.
Co-Chair Therriault asked how the father's dividend check
would be accessed. Ms. Bomengen stated that in most cases,
the procedure would be paid for by the woman's permanent
fund check.
Representative Martin countered that procedure should be
similar to the one used by the Child Support Enforcement
Agency (CSEA) and would be done at the time of delivery.
Representative Martin thought this action would provide an
incentive to the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS).
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that even though the bill
recommends pursuing both the man and woman, there would be
no need to go past the woman. Representative Kelly
suggested that an amendment be added to the bill which would
clarify that the both parents be equally responsible,
whereas, if the mother chose not to identify the father,
then she remain singularly responsible for payment.
NANCY WELLER, DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, stated that Section 3 of HB 234
would eliminate the Department's ability to fund abortions
for low income women. Since 1986, the Department has not
funded any services beyond the current number #7.
She addressed the concerns of the Department. The
Department would take action against the woman and collect
her permanent fund dividend for the abortion costs. Of the
people who apply for the Medicaid program, most recipients
are eligible for Medicaid. Those who receive abortions
under the General Relief Medical (GRM) program, do not have
to identify the father of the child until the child is born.
The person could be required, under a condition of receiving
funding for an abortion, to assign the rights to their
permanent fund dividend check to the State or ask them to
identify the father of the unborn child. That would be
costly for the Department and would require deep tissue
testing. The cost for the testing in the State of Alaska is
5
$975 dollars. Many areas of the State do not do DNA
testing. Also, there is no statewide authority to compel a
father to comply with the testing. Ms. Weller agreed that
it was a compelling idea to have the father take part in the
administrative costs, although, reiterated that it is not a
sound idea or financially feasible. The bill provides
authority to take action on the cost of the abortion, but
does not cover the administrative costs associated with
establishing paternity.
Representative Kelly asked the connection between federal
Medicaid, Medicare and State funded abortion dollars. Ms.
Weller replied that most women that receive funding for
abortion through the General Relief Program (GRP) are
Medicaid recipients. There is no link between federal and
state dollars.
Representative Martin spoke to the priorities of the
services funded and suggested that by eliminating abortions
would provide more funding for other emergency services.
Ms. Weller advised that those are two different programs and
services. The State spends about $300 thousand dollars on
GRM abortions annually, whereas, the cost of adult emergency
care is close to $4 million dollars. She emphasized that
these are two different programs and the money can not be
used for the alternate program.
ANGELA SALERNO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS, JUNEAU, spoke in strong opposition to the
proposed legislation. HB 234 would virtually eliminate the
availability of abortion services for one class of
individuals in the State, poor women. If the services are
eliminated, there will be unintended outcomes. The options
would be restricted for poor women. There are many
unintended pregnancies each year. There will also be
increased costs to the State with the fetal testing. And
also, assuming the cost of Medicaid and welfare for those
children. She stressed that when children are unwanted in a
family, much more recorded child abuse and neglect exists.
CARLA TIMPONE, ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY, JUNEAU, testified in
opposition to the proposed legislation. The Lobby's
concerns are specific to three areas:
* Related to gender equity;
* Related to class issues; and
* Related to singling out one elective
procedure as opposed to another.
(Tape Change HFC 97-124, Side 2).
Representative Kelly pointed out that the bill does not make
6
a statement about an individual's position on abortion;
rather, it is only a statement about funding abortion.
Co-Chair Therriault placed HB 234 in Subcommittee with
Representative Kelly as Chair and with members
Representative Martin and Representative J. Davies. He
asked that the Subcommittee address the following concerns:
* The amendment provided by Representative
Martin;
* The issue of addressing the identify of the
father in the situation;
* Any constitutional issues which need
addressing by the Department of Law; and
* How to compel a man/father to participate in
the actual paternity and potential
responsibility.
HB 234 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|