Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/09/2001 04:43 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 2053
SB 91-ABORTION: INFORMED CONSENT; INFORMATION
MS. SANDRA ALTLAND, staff to Senator Ward, noted that there are two
main parts to informed consent. First, the Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS) would be required to develop a pamphlet
that would be available to the public. The pamphlet would consist
of factual and nonbiased information that talked about pregnancy
and abortion alternatives available throughout the state. Second,
SB 91 asks that the current signed consent requirements be changed
from regulation to statute and that definite points be covered with
pregnant women during informed consent.
MS. ALTLAND said it is important for women to have abortion
information before them so they can make the best decision, and
DHSS is to compile a pamphlet and distribute it, free of charge, to
anyone who wants it. The pamphlet would discuss fetal development
and it would use the term "unborn child." The words unborn child
need to be in the pamphlet because the pamphlet would be written
for people who want to use terms such as baby or unborn child - the
term fetal development dehumanizes the reality of pregnancy.
MS. ALTLAND said that page 2, line 28 talks about abortion
procedures, medical risks, and psychological effects. Often the
psychological effects do not surface until years later and this
connection is not made at the time. She said this information
needed to be up front and in a manner that speaks to the woman
going through this situation, telling them there are chances of
severe medical risk. The information should be available anyplace
a pregnant woman would be, such as public hospitals, clinics, and
health facilities throughout the state and it should also be
available if an administrator in a private hospital would like it.
MS. ALTLAND said SB 91 asks doctors to take time in giving the
necessary information to women who are trying to make a decision
about abortion, and to also give them other alternatives. The bill
also clarifies what informed consent is, and the pamphlet would
have pictures of fetal development, showing the unborn child at
different stages.
Number 2354
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if SB 91 substantially modified current
regulations.
MS. ALTLAND noted that laying out the different points of informed
consent would help unify the information that had been given. She
said some doctors are very good at providing information, but
others do not take the time for good informed consent.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if SB 91 was just copying the regulation
language into statute.
MS. ALTLAND was not sure of the answer.
Number 2243
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that it was not his intention to move SB 91
from committee at this time because there had not been adequate
notice of the meeting or adequate time for testimony.
DR. BOB JOHNSON, testifying via teleconference from Kodiak, said he
has practiced medicine in Alaska from 1955 to 1994 when he retired.
He said he performed abortions during that time and was the only
physician in Kodiak that did. He said he had faxed the committee
an article he wrote several years ago on abortion. He opposed SB
91 as an unnecessary impediment to the free exercise of choice,
which had been a legal right of women since Roe versus Wade.
Administratively there are requirements in place for reporting
abortions, the stage of gestation, reasons for the abortion, and
complications. The matter of consent is reiterated many times in
all areas of medical care and no physician would fail to obtain a
signed consent. A woman has a right to ask her physician any
question and a physician has the obligation to answer that question
to the best of his or her ability. He said there was no need to
designate exactly what needed to be asked, particularly since it
often mitigated against treating each patient as an individual with
individual needs. Dr. Johnson felt that SB 91 was redundant and
its aim was to control individuals and impose what some people
think should be required in order for women to exercise their
choice.
MR. JOHNSON said if the legislature must pass SB 91, he would
suggest that members listen to the suggestions of the Alaska Civil
Liberties Union and consider taking out the emotionally charged
words "unborn child." He said someone who was not in favor of
abortions had obviously put this into the bill, and the proper
medical term was fetus, which was not an emotionally disruptive
term.
MR. JOHNSON commented that the residency requirement of 30 days
should be eliminated. He said he hoped committee members would
read the article he had sent.
Number 2074
MS. KAREN VOS BURGH, Executive Director for Alaska Right to Life,
said SB 91 is severely needed. Many times doctors do not give
patients full information and sometimes the information not very
factual. She had talked with many women who say they were not
given the right information therefore it should be required.
Abortionists do not want the baby referred to as baby, they want it
referred to as fetus - the "preborn baby" is sometimes referred to
as pregnancy tissue or "just a bunch of cells" or a product of
conception. Virtually nothing is being done by the abortion
industry or the general press to warn women who are considering
abortion about its high rate of risk. Several states have
implemented right to know laws and Alaska should follow suit.
There are over 100 potential complications associated with abortion
and there are many studies that prove this. The abortionists say
there is no connection between breast cancer and abortion but
several studies have proven otherwise. Legislators in 11 states
are pushing for pro-life laws requiring abortion practitioners to
tell women that an abortion could raise their risk of breast
cancer. This is not only an abortion issue but also a health
issue. She said the medical establishment is trying to cover up
the link between abortion and breast cancer and that someday this
would be a public relations fiasco for them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked her, and said time was running short but SB
91 would be heard again if she wanted to testify at the next
hearing.
Number 1792
MS. CHRISTINA TALBOTT, speaking on her own behalf, said she had a
few concerns regarding the language of SB 91. On page 2, line 10
the language says, "(4) states that a person who coerces a woman to
undergo an abortion may be prosecuted for a felony offense under AS
11.41.530." She said in the interest of providing objective and
nonjudgmental language it might make more sense to change the
language to: "coercing women into a decision regarding an abortion"
- just to be more inclusive. She said (5) is redundant because law
already requires informed consent. On page 3, line 16 the language
reads, "(1) 'fertilization' means the fusion of a human
spermatozoon with a human ovum," but she said the date of
occurrence is unclear. She objected to the language on page 2,
lines 18 and 19 defining "gestational age" as the age of the unborn
child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period
of a pregnant woman. She said this was not possible. Women
ovulate between one and one half weeks after their period has
finished and if the age of the unborn child is counted from that
date, two or three weeks would be added to the age of the child,
which would be a concern because lines 19 through 27 on page 2 says
the pamphlet is to describe the fetal development of the typical
unborn child at two week gestational increments, which would effect
where the baby was and where the woman reading the pamphlet felt
their child had developed. She said in Section 1, (7) the language
that says, "relevant information about the possibility of an unborn
child's survival at the various gestational ages" is unclear and
should be removed from SB 91 or defined further. She also objected
to the term "unborn child" because the word fetus is a commonly
known term, which is an objective nonbiased scientific term.
Number 1656
MS. KAREN PEARSON, Director of the Division of Public Health for
the Department of Health and Social Service (DHSS), said the
department is in agreement that all women seeking a pregnancy
termination should be fully informed prior to termination. DHSS is
concerned about the inclusion requirements for the pamphlet though.
SB 91 says that the names of all providers and agencies are to be
in a pamphlet and their services are to be included, and all of
this is to be geographically indexed. There are more than 200
communities in Alaska and if one pamphlet were assembled that lists
all the information required by SB 91, it would be very large. The
pamphlet would also be out of date by the time it is printed
because Alaska has many providers that come and go. DHSS is
concerned that what it is being requested might not accomplish what
the sponsor intended, which is information in a complete and
useable form. The pamphlet would also be a big expense for the
department because it would take someone working full time to keep
up with all the changes, in all the communities.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that under current statute AS 18.05.035 the
department was mandated to prepare information regarding planned
parenthood and to place that information in public hospitals. He
asked how the existing requirements would be any different than
what would be required by SB 91.
MS. PEARSON said existing statute does not specify that the
information be all in one document or what the content should be.
The statute tells the department to put out information related to
planned parenthood but it does not say what the format or content
should be.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the problem was in the geographical
indexing.
MS. PEARSON said that was exactly right. SB 91 would require a
list for every service agency, every provider, in every community
with what services they provide and how to access them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that Ms. Jennifer Rudinger was on line and the
committee had received her comments but because of a lack of time,
SB 91 would be held in committee and taken up at a later date. He
said he would have his staff contact her in advance of the next
meeting so she could testify then.
MS. JENNIFER RUDINGER, Alaska Civil Liberties, said she had a
statement from Dr. Jan Whitefield in Anchorage and would fax it to
the committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|