Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/20/1995 09:11 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SHES - 3/20/95
SB 105 PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
Number 003
VICE-CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:11 a.m. He explained that
Chairman Green would be arriving later due to a cancelled flight.
He noted that other members would arrive shortly and he would chair
the meeting until Senator Green arrived. He introduced SB 105 as
the first order of business before the committee. Vice-Chairman
Leman relinquished control of the chair to Senator Miller in order
to deliver his sponsor statement.
SENATOR LEMAN, prime sponsor of SB 105, explained that SB 105
provides for a judicial by-pass for parental consent requirements
for a minor's abortion. The objective of this is to make the
existing parental consent requirement in state law enforceable.
Currently, the state does not enforce the parental consent
requirement; the attorney generals specified that the Alaska
Statute is not constitutional. The statute does not have an
alternative procedure, judicial by-pass. He clarified that
judicial by-pass would allow a juvenile girl to go to court to
request that she be allowed to give consent for an abortion instead
of her parents. SB 105 would provide that alternative procedure
which would make it consistent with other state's whose similar
laws have been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Senator Leman stated that SB 105 would help young pregnant women
seek guidance for one of the most important decisions they may
make. He pointed out that procedures such as ear piercing and
receiving medication in a school clinic require parental consent or
permission for minors. He explained that personally, he did not
want judicial by-pass because it would provide a large loophole.
However, SB 105 would reduce the number of abortions while ensuring
parental involvement.
Number 105
Senator Leman pointed out that 22 states now enforce some form of
parental involvement legislation which has reduced teenage
abortions by up to 27 percent. Applying the typical factors to
Alaska, approximately 100 children's lives could be saved every
year with the passage of SB 105. He informed everyone that recent
polls illustrate that 74 to 80 percent of the population would
support the parental right to be involved in the abortion decisions
of minor women. He acknowledged that SB 105 would not cure all the
devastation caused by abortion, but the legislation would help.
Senator Leman reiterated that Alaska statutes provide for parental
involvement in many other areas and abortion should be consistent
with those. Regarding the constitutionality of such legislation in
Alaska, Senator Leman noted that children and adults are viewed
differently in the law and the courts. He explained that while the
Constitution of Alaska protects children, it also presumes that
children are not at the same level of maturity as adults. The law
acknowledges the difference between children and adults in the
following three areas: (1) there is a peculiar vulnerability of
children, (2) there is an inability of children to make decisions
in an informed mature manner, and (3) there is an importance placed
on the parental role of child rearing. SB 105 attempts to
encourage parental involvement while allowing a streamlined
alternative procedure for those who wish to go to court.
Number 167
SENATOR MILLER returned the Chair to Senator Leman.
SENATOR LEMAN began calling those who wished to testify.
BRANT MCGEE, Head of the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA), explained
that they were interested in this bill because the judicial by-pass
requires the appointment of a guardian at litem. Guardian at
litems are provided by OPA. He stated that approximately 2,400
abortions are performed in Alaska of which 288 are performed on
women age 17 or younger. He estimated that 39 percent, 112 young
women, would pursue judicial by-pass. That estimation is based on
a study that said that of those states without parental consent or
notice 61 percent of parents were informed of their children's
abortion.
Mr. McGee noted that states with judicial by-pass should have a
record which would project what would happen in these proceedings.
In Pennsylvania, which enacted such legislation last March,
approximately 100 percent of minors' abortions are approved by the
court. Massachusetts has data dating back to April of 1981 when
the parental consent law came into effect; 1/10th of one percent,
14, of the abortions were denied. Of those 14 denials, 12 were
overturned by an appellate court and the remaining two became moot.
He informed the committee that a Minnesota judge characterized his
participation in more than 1,000 parental notification hearings as
a routine clerical function. This evidence illustrates that black
middle-aged judges would be unlikely to deny teenage women seeking
judicial by-pass for an abortion. He indicated that the clauses in
those states had been condemned for delaying teenagers' abortions
as well as a judiciary waste of time and money. However, the
Pennsylvania Pro Life group does feel that parental consent laws
discourage minors from having abortions.
Number 229
Mr. McGee pointed out that page 5, line 16, subsection (d) of
SB 105 seems to confuse the functions of a guardian at litem and an
attorney which are both appointed; one person cannot serve in both
capacities. A guardian at litem must protect the best interest of
the child while an attorney must represent the wishes of their
client. He did not feel that the appointment of a guardian at
litem would be appropriate since the best interest of the child
would not be relevant to the judicial criteria in making the
decision. He suggested that mandating the appointment of an
attorney to represent the client would seem more appropriate.
SENATOR SALO expressed concern about the time needed to appoint a
guardian at litem and obtaining an attorney, especially with the
upcoming funding cuts. BRANT MCGEE said that a guardian at litem
and an attorney are appointed overnight. The resulting problem
would be that the person or attorney must be available to devote
their full time to the preparation for the hearing. Mr. McGee
noted that the office could not afford to absorb this
responsibility into their current caseload. They cannot pay for
their current caseload.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to the fiscal note of SB 105. SENATOR
LEMAN informed her that the fiscal note from the Office of Public
Advocacy was $112,000 per year.
SENATOR MILLER asked Mr. McGee how he arrived at his numbers when
little if any reporting of abortions occur. BRANT MCGEE explained
that he had received articles from a friend in Denver from which he
had derived this information. He cited the article "Parental
Involvement and Minors' Abortions Decisions" published in Family
Planning Perspectives in the fall of 1992 which discussed the
numbers of minors seeking abortions, the reasons they seek
abortions, and the reasons they may not desire parental
involvement. The other data can be found in the Family Planning
Perspectives and a book entitled, Abortions and Women's Health
which was published in 1990.
Number 298
SENATOR MILLER inquired as to how Mr. McGee arrived at the numbers
for Alaska regarding the number of abortions in Alaska and the
relating percentages. BRANT MCGEE specified that the number of
abortions in Alaska referred to reported abortions. Mr. McGee
commented that he did not have data for 1993 and 1994. The number
of women 17 or younger is derived from statistic reports. Mr.
McGee clarified that the 39 percent of young women that he projects
would seek judicial by-pass for an abortion is derived from another
study. The other study illustrated that in states without parental
consent or notification 61 percent of parents were informed of
their children's abortion. Mr. McGee assumed that the remaining 39
percent who do not currently inform their parents would seek a
judicial by-pass. The final number is an assumption based on hard
data.
SENATOR LEMAN asked why Mr. McGee assumed that all 39 percent of
those minors would go to court rather than a portion of that group
going to their parents due to SB 105. BRANT MCGEE clarified that
the numbers are based on the number of children who currently do
not go to their parents. The assumption is that if they do not
inform their parents now and another alternative is provided, they
would choose the alternative. Mr. McGee agreed that some would
decide to talk to their parents, but that would depend upon many
factors such as the availability of information regarding judicial
by-pass.
SENATOR LEMAN encouraged Mr. McGee to provide his testimony in
writing and offer any other information he can.
Number 339
JUDITH KOHLER, Americans United for Life testifying from Chicago,
explained that the United States' Supreme Court had stated many
good reasons to enact parental involvement statutes. Enacting such
legislation would be in the best interest of Alaska in protecting
the health and welfare of its minors, fostering family unity, and
encouraging parental involvement in the upbringing of minor
children. SB 105 has been drafted in order to conform with the
Supreme Court requirements set out in parental involvement statutes
in other states. Parental involvement statutes are important
because teenagers often have difficulty assessing long-term
consequences of difficult decisions. She asserted that parental
involvement is particularly poignant with regard to abortion
decisions due to the fact that a parent often remains responsible
for their child for many years after an abortion.
Alaska already has 22 parental consent or notification statutes.
Ms. Kohler stated that although, abortions are legal they are not
always safe. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm for
the Pro Choice movement, reported that Alaska had 2,370 abortions
in 1992 of which a third may be minors. Minors are in danger of
experiencing medical complications; they have a 10 percent chance
of experiencing immediate medical complications such as cervical
injury, a perforated uterus and others. She surmised that since
Alaska does not have an enforceable parental consent law, the
parents of these minors receiving abortions were probably unaware
of the possible dangers their children faced. Mr. Kohler said that
Minnesota and Massachusetts have documented evidence that
illustrates that the teenage pregnancy and abortion rate decreased
after parental involvement statutes were enacted. There are
currently 38 states which have parental involvement statutes,
consent is required in 22 of the states while notice is required in
16 of the states.
Number 392
SENATOR LEMAN asked if 38 states currently enforce parental
involvement or is the number 22. JUDITH KOHLER clarified that 38
states have such statutes while some states are currently under
litigation or they have become enjoined or declared
unconstitutional. Ms. Kohler noted the chart from which this
information is drawn. Ms. Kohler pointed out that the Pennsylvania
statute provides much of the basis for SB 105.
SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to where abortions involving minors
without parental consent would typically be performed. JUDITH
KOHLER stated that fewer and fewer abortions are done in hospitals.
Perhaps, that is a result of the availability of abortion clinics
which is where the majority of abortions are performed.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if these clinics would have access to the
juvenile's medical records. JUDITH KOHLER replied no and explained
that only parents would have access to the minor's full medical
record. Ms. Kohler felt that having a minor's full medical record
for an abortion would lend support for the passage of parental
involvement and consent legislation.
In response to Senator Salo, Ms. Kohler stated that she was the
Legislative Counsel for Americans United for Life. Ms. Kohler
commented that she had dealt with this issue in a variety of ways
due to her past experience as a former Illinois Legislator and
prosecutor. Americans United for Life has been involved in every
Supreme Court case that has been litigated since and including Roe
vs. Wade. Americans United for Life is a law firm which deals with
legislation, litigation, and public education.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if Americans United for Life were involved in
the numerous cases listed in the committee's back up. JUDITH
KOHLER said yes and listed many of the cases in which the
organization was involved. Ms. Kohler commented that this
organization was the most experienced law firm in the nation in
litigation defending statutes.
Number 445
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel to the Judicial Branch, informed
the committee that the Supreme Court does not take a position on
legislation unless it would directly effect the internal
administration of the Judicial Branch. Legislation such as SB 105
are policy calls which are constitutionally given to the
legislature. He commented that page 5, lines 1-4 of SB 105 refer
to a referee which the court system designates as a master, an
attorney that is a specialist in a particular area. In Anchorage
and Fairbanks where three quarters of the case volume is found,
there are standing masters. He explained that the Supreme Court
has always held that the power to appoint a master to give advice
to a judge is an inherent power of a judge. The legislature cannot
restrict that power even with a two-thirds vote. He expected that
most of these cases in Anchorage would be referred to the Probate
Master. The Probate Department is separate from the rest of the
Superior Court; this department handles other judicial consent
issues for juveniles.
Mr. Christensen suggested that if OPA would be required to appoint
guardians at litem and attorneys, then language to that effect
should be specifically added on page 5, lines 16-21 to AS 44.21.410
which sets forth the jurisdiction of OPA. He apologized for not
having the fiscal note prepared and explained that they were still
determining the number of cases per year that there may be. He
noted that Mr. McGee's fiscal note is only based on providing a
guardian at litem. If an attorney is to be appointed also then the
cost would probably more than double Mr. McGee's fiscal note.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the court system had any comments regarding
the expedited procedure that SB 105 sets forth. CHRIS CHRISTENSEN
noted that SB 105 would impose additional costs due to the
expedited procedure. Mr. Christensen said that they recognize that
if the legislation is approved then there would be no other
alternative, but to follow this procedure. The Probate Department
in Anchorage is already full through June. Mr. Christensen
explained that with this legislation, they may have to leave
additional time open in order to accommodate these cases which may
in the long-term slow other areas of the court.
Number 497
ART MATHIAS, President of the Christian Coalition of Alaska, stated
that SB 105 is not about abortion, but rather parental rights and
responsibilities. No matter ones personal opinion of abortion,
parents have the right and the responsibility to be involved in the
decisions of their minors. He reiterated that a physician is
required to receive parental permission in order to treat a child's
common cold or give a physical. Abortion does not require this
parental consent although it is a serious medical procedure with
serious side effects. He felt that the government would be
contributing to the destruction of the family by not requiring
parental consent for abortions of minors. He implied that
teenagers were not mature enough to make life and death decisions
such as abortion and be able to deal with the emotional trauma
afterwards. Those who oppose SB 105 oppose the family. Abortion
is a family decision. The rare case of pregnancy due to incest is
addressed in SB 105 by allowing the judge to step in place of the
family. He emphasized that as the family has deteriorated so has
society; efforts to rebuild society and its families must be
doubled.
BARBARA FALLON, testifying on her own behalf, informed the
committee that she had worked in a children's agency for five years
with foster care and adoption and seven years as a director of a
clinic in a general hospital. She mentioned the Right to Privacy
when commenting on the inconsistency in regard to parental
responsibility required in other areas dealing with minors. She
emphasized that it seemed inconsistent that parents may not be
informed when their minor child makes decisions about abortion or
carrying a child to term.
Number 554
PAULINE HILLTER, Chair of the Abortion Rights project, explained
that the Abortion Rights project is dedicated to keeping abortion
safe and legal for all women. Parental involvement cannot be
legislated. The project is opposed to SB 105.
VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, a mother and grandmother and great grandmother,
stated support for SB 105 and for the physical and emotional health
of minors. Minors do not have the necessary maturity for such a
life changing decision as abortion. She reiterated the fact that
minors are protected from their own immaturity in other areas and
it seems logical to protect minors from making the decision to have
an abortion by themselves. Some physicians need the restraint of
the law making it illegal to perform an abortion on a minor without
parental consent just as merchants are restrained with laws
regarding selling alcohol and tobacco to minors.
Ms. Phillips pointed out that parents and guardians are the only
persons with complete medical and emotional facts concerning the
minor, the minor may not even know all the facts. This information
is necessary for a physician to make an informed decision regarding
a minor's abortion. Parents should monitor the effects after an
abortion and be able to help the minor with unforeseen medical and
emotional problems. She noted that since the parents would be
responsible for any medical costs after the abortion, it would only
seem fair that they be included in the decision-making process.
She indicated that the family unit could be strengthened by working
through an unplanned pregnancy as a family. She had experienced
this with her eldest daughter.
TAPE 95-17, SIDE B
Ms. Phillips reiterated the statistics in Pennsylvania which
indicate that teenage births and abortions have decreased since
parental involvement legislation was enacted. She urged the
committee to pass SB 105 in its entirety as soon as possible. She
noted that she was a Right to Life spokesman for American Indians
and Alaskan Natives.
Number 580
MARTHA DEVEREAUX, testifying in Sitka, hoped that SB 105 would
receive a speedy passage. She suggested that legislation be
introduced which would pursue a 24 hour waiting period and
information on fetal development given to women. Parental
notification in the case of minors receiving abortions is about who
is responsible children. Parents are responsible for the welfare,
provision and safety of their children. She reiterated the
inconsistencies with parental consent and notification; abortion is
a serious operation with many known side effects although parental
consent or notification is not legally required. She listed many
of the known side effects and dangers of abortions according to the
National Abortion Federation.
Ms. Devereaux cited a New York Times, CBS poll that illustrated
that 76 percent of Americans support parental notification laws
with only 21 percent in opposition to such laws. She discussed the
passage of the 1991 Minnesota parental notification law which
resulted in the decrease of teen pregnancy by 20 percent and
abortions by 27 percent. Minnesota discovered that parental
involvement works to reduce both the teen pregnancy rate and
abortion. She informed the committee that Planned Parenthood's
research division estimated that more than 90 percent of women who
have abortions experience some form of physical or emotional
trauma; 73 percent label the trauma as severe. Women who were
asked if they would have chosen an abortion knowing where their
lives were today, 94 percent said no. Ms. Devereaux recounted the
1990 case in Indiana in which a daughter's life could have been
saved if the parents had known about her abortion. She asserted
that parents are ultimately responsible for deciding the welfare of
their children.
Number 545
SHARON WAISANEN, testifying from Kenai Soldotna, opposed SB 105.
SB 105 does nothing to prevent pregnancy. She informed everyone
that in her experience in professionally working with young women,
a great many of them seeking abortions do talk to their parents.
Those who do not talk to their parents have a reason for not
talking with their parents, furthermore, these women would not be
likely to pursue the judicial by-pass option. She said that many
children are victims of their parents.
Ms. Waisanen discussed the Montana situation in which there is a
proposal to require that one parent be notified 14 hours before
their child had an abortion. She reviewed various other states
parental involvement legislation. She indicated that not all
parents would deal with a pregnant daughter in a loving and caring
manner which could lead to the psychological and/or physical injury
of the daughter. She noted that she had been a high school
counselor and had worked with many young women in this situation.
GENE OTTENSTROER, testifying from Delta Junction, stated his
opposition to SB 105 and any bills that are for abortion. This
country was formed around God and the family unit. SB 105 and
others like it attack the family unit and destroy it. SB 105 is
one step toward the New World Order Clan. Passage of SB 105 and
others like it that permit abortion would be like slapping God in
the face. Everyone who has a part of this will answer to God.
EILEEN BECKER, Assistant Director of the Homer Crisis Pregnancy
Center (HCPC) and mother, said that she had worked with women for
the last eight years at HCPC. She supported SB 105. She
characterized those who would oppose SB 105 as either the abortion
clinics or parents who do not want to take responsibility for the
actions of their children. She recounted the experiences she had
with three pregnant minors at HCPC. SB 105 would send a message to
minors that parents do care. She expressed amazement that minors
cannot have their ears pierced without parental consent, while a
child can go through an abortion alone.
Number 471
LISA PENALVER, President of the Fairbanks Coalition for Choice,
opposed SB 105. She indicated that parental involvement is a noble
goal, but it is impossible to legislate a level of parental
involvement. Parental consent in regard to abortions of minors is
desirable; most teens do involve their parents. Those teens who do
not involve their parents are situations in which the family
structure is already distorted. She emphasized that an unplanned
pregnancy was already difficult enough for teens without further
barriers such as SB 105. Abortion nor pregnancy is to be taken
lightly. She pointed out that the complications that Ms. Kohler
attributed to abortion are actually risks of any sexual activity
not explicitly abortion. The risk of complications for pregnancy
is 11 times greater than for an early abortion.
Ms. Penalver noted that sexuality issues in teens are treated
differently than other issues that currently have parental
involvement required. Teens are not required to receive parental
consent for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. She
pointed out that court appointments may pose a problem because in
rural Alaska delays in appointments would be inevitable which would
result in more second trimester abortions in teens. Second
trimester abortions for teens greatly increases their health risks.
SB 105 is designed to reduce the number of abortions. She felt
that SB 105 would put minors seeking abortions who cannot talk to
their parents at risk. Such minor women would either seek an
illegal abortion or go through the court process. The court
process would also pose delays and serious health complications.
KELLY MAHONEY informed the committee that she has had 12 years
experience in counseling pregnant teens. She concurred with the
testimony of Ms. Penalver. She indicated that in her field she
often sees children who have been coerced by their parents to have
an abortion. She commented that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is
a well respected institute for research; it is not a research arm
of the Pro Choice organization. In a 1992 study, two percent of
teens surveyed said that someone at the clinic attempted to push
them into an abortion. One percent of those same teens said that
they were pressured by the clinic to continue the pregnancy. In
the same study, 18 percent of the young women who did not
voluntarily inform their parents, but whose parents discovered
their pregnancy, reported being forced by their parents to have an
abortion.
Ms. Mahoney asserted that healthy families would communicate about
such a decision. A court procedure is unfriendly to teens. There
would continue to be transportation problems in rural areas such as
Mat-Su. She felt that most doctors and counselors do an excellent
job in counseling teenagers in their decisions. She recommended
focusing on funding model pregnancy prevention programs. She
discussed a coalition in Mat-Su which taught abstinence based
education in the school. This education resulted in a decrease in
teen pregnancies; there were 65 teen pregnancies before the
education and 23 teen pregnancies after the education. She said
that such education programs proved better than clearing the path
for increased child bearing, aid to families with dependent
children recipients and increased strain on the medical budget.
Ms. Mahoney stated that SB 105 was unclear as to how a child would
prove to the court that she has issues that deter her from speaking
to her parents. She suggested that research illustrates that teens
having abortions have less emotional and physical traumas than
those bearing children.
SENATOR LEMAN announced that SB 105 would be held until Wednesday,
March 22, 1995 for further testimony. Anyone interested in
submitting written testimony could give it to the teleconference
moderator in order to forward to the committee. Senator Leman
relinquished control of the committee to Senator Green.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|