Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
02/19/2018 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB124 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 124-ABORTION PROCEDURES; CHILD SURRENDER
1:31:06 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced the consideration of SB 124.
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB
124, said the bill offers mothers who are faced with a crisis
pregnancy another option. If a baby has reached viability or has
the opportunity for viability, the bill calls for the physician
performing the abortion to give the baby the best opportunity to
survive. A child born alive as a result of an abortion shall
receive the same degree of professional skill, care, and
diligence. This is the opposite of a Do Not Resuscitate order. A
child born alive as a result of an abortion may be surrendered
to a physician or an employee of the hospital or facility where
the abortion is performed and will be regarded as a Child in
Need of Aid. This assumes that the parent is unwilling or unable
to care for the child, although that may not be the case. The
bill has an immediate effective date.
She noted that in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme
Court maintained that the state has an interest in protecting
the life of a fetus after viability--that is, after the point at
which the fetus is capable of living outside the womb.
SENATOR GIESSEL said that is the foundation of bill, the point
of viability. She quoted from the Roe v. Wade decision:
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate
interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is
at viability. This is so because the fetus then
presumably has the capability of meaningful life
outside the mother's womb."
"State regulation protective of fetal life after
viability thus has both logical and biological
justifications. If the State is interested in
protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so
far as to proscribe (forbid, especially by law)
abortion during that period, except when it is
necessary to preserve the life or health of the
mother."
1:34:49 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL said SB 124 is all about the definition of
viability. She quoted from the following case in which the court
upholds the viability definition.
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth,
428 U.S. 52, 63 (1976), 410 U. S., at 160, 163
In Roe, we used the term "viable," properly we
thought, to signify the point at which the fetus is
"potentially able to live outside the mother's womb,
albeit with artificial aid," and presumably capable of
"meaningful life outside the mother's womb,".
SENATOR GIESSEL quoted from the following case:
Whitner v. State of South Carolina, 328 S.C. 1, 7-8
(S.C.1997) Facing the issue of when a fetus is
entitled to protection, the court held that a viable
fetus was a "person" for the purposes of the
Children's Code.
She said most people are not that informed about what happens as
a child develops in utero. She referenced a graphic that
describes development at different weeks of fetal age.
She pointed out that the graphs in her presentation are from the
Mayo foundation. She described how the graph shows the formation
of fingerprints and footprints at 14 weeks, right after the
first trimester. Before 14 weeks, abortions are usually a
vacuum-type procedure. At 14 weeks the baby is often too large
for that procedure and a procedure called dismemberment is done.
1:37:48 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL described a graph of a baby at 23 weeks, close
to six months. She said the eyes have begun blinking, the heart
and blood vessels have formed, and fingerprints are fully
developed. When she applied for a concealed carry permit and her
nursing license, she had to submit to a criminal background
check, which required her fingerprints. Fingerprints are viewed
as a unique identifier for each human being. By four months and
certainly by six months, these babies have fingerprints.
She said by five months, a baby is sucking its thumb,
stretching, yawning, and making faces. The mother certainly
feels this little person moving, she said. By 20 weeks
documentation indicates that they can feel pain.
SENATOR GIESSEL said at 27 weeks of age, closing in on eight
months of age, the central nervous system is functioning. They
weigh about four pounds. At eight months--eyes wide open,
toenails, fingernails, beginning to form a fat layer, the brain
is completely developed and the lungs are nearly developed. At
this point in Alaska this child is still eligible for an
abortion procedure because Alaska has no limit on gestational
age for abortion, she said. At four pounds, only a dismemberment
procedure can be used.
She said she would not describe the procedure in detail, but it
can be imagined. The bill, very simply, gives the best
opportunity for the unborn child who reaches viability to
survive birth, requiring professional skill and care to be given
to the child. She said some will make the claim that these
children really cannot survive. In fact, medical science
improves daily. She referred to a chart that shows more than 50
percent opportunity of viability after 25 weeks, about six
months gestational age.
1:41:31 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL referred to a graph that shows states that have
viability defined by weeks of gestation. She noted that the
graph does not have the latest information, and 23 states have
time-specific dates of viability and 20 states use the term
protection at viability. The graph shows foreign countries that
have limits on abortion procedures tied to points of potential
viability. She shared that the source of the information on the
graph, the Guttmacher Institute, is actually a proabortion
organization, not a Right to Life group, to make the point that
this is factual information.
She said this bill gives mothers, who for one reason or another,
are faced with that difficult choice, another option, to deliver
a preterm child that has that opportunity of viability to be
delivered in such a way that they could survive. That mom could
elect to surrender the child, who will become a Child in Need of
Aid (CINA). The bill has an immediate effective date. There are
real people, real children, today who have been delivered early
and are leading healthy, productive lives.
She described the bill as interesting because of the groups
opposing it. On the one hand, Planned Parenthood is opposed to
it. Alaska Right to Life is against it too because it does not
ban abortion and they opine it only saves one or two lives. She
referred to the movie, Schindler's List, that told the story of
Oskar Schindler, a German businessman who employed Jews to work
in his factories because they were cheap labor during WW II.
When he saw Nazis slaughtering Jews, he realized he had the
opportunity to save lives. He used his fortune to bribe Nazi
guards and assign more Jewish workers to his factory, so he
could save lives. After the war, the Jewish survivors gave him a
ring inscribed with a saying from the Talmud,". . . whoever
saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."
1:45:26 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL showed a picture of Margot Schlesinger, one of
the survivors, and her many descendants as an example of every
life mattering.
KARI NORE, Staff, Senator Cathy Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional on SB 124
on behalf of the sponsor.
Section 1: Amends AS 18.16.010 by adding new
subsections to provide for a physician to use the
method of terminating the pregnancy that best provides
for the unborn child to survive outside the mother's
womb. It requires health practitioners present at the
procedure to exercise the same degree of professional
practice and diligence to preserve the life of the
viable child born as would be provided to a child born
through the course of natural birth. Provides
definitions for "alive," "clinical judgment,"
ertilization," and "fetal age."
Section 2: Amends AS 18.16 by adding a new section
that would allow a parent of a child born alive during
the process of an abortion to surrender the child to a
physician or employee of the hospital. The person to
whom the child had been surrendered will notify the
Department of Health and Social Services as required
under AS 47.10.013(d).
Section 3: Amends AS 47.10.011 and adds a provision in
the Child in Need of Aid (CINA) statue to include a
child born alive during the termination of a pregnancy
whose parent is unwilling or unable to care for the
infant.
Section 4: Adds an applicability provision that states
that AS 18.16.010(k)-(m), added by Sec. 1, AS
18.16.012, added by Sec. 2, and AS 47.10.011, as
amended by Sec. 3 apply to abortions performed or
induced on or after the effective dates of those
sections.
Section 5: Provides for an immediate effective date
for this Act.
1:48:22 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that he and Senator Giessel are both
unabashedly prolife. He asked how many states have legally
upheld bans on elective abortions in the third trimester.
SENATOR GIESSEL said three states have identified the third
trimester as the stopping point for abortions. Recently a
Congressional bill just like this bill, with a few exceptions,
that banned most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy did not
pass the Senate, 51-46. In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court
verified the ban on abortion after viability not too long ago.
Eight states passed laws banning abortion after viability. Only
two of those states have bills that are enforced right now. The
laws in other states are under court challenge.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if viability applies before the third
trimester in most cases.
SENATOR GIESSEL referred to him to the graph showing the
survival rate of premature babies on slide 17. By 26 weeks the
survival rate is over 60 percent and for 24 weeks over 50
percent. She reiterated that Alaska has no limit in place.
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked who defines viability and if physicians
have any protections for deciding a fetus is not viable.
SENATOR GIESSEL said this bill places that decision in the hands
of the physician. It differs from the proposed federal law
because it does not define a particular week. The proposed
federal law had a penalty for physicians; this bill does not.
She is trusting the ethics of physicians in Alaska and the sworn
duty to do no harm.
1:53:07 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked if she sees a scenario where a physician
can be liable if he or she makes a decision about viability that
someone disagrees with.
SENATOR GIESSEL said she is not an attorney and she is certain
attorneys will find some way, but that is not the intent of the
bill. Nothing in the bill creates a liability because it does
not specify a gestational age.
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked if it will help alleviate potential
misunderstanding about the intent of bill if it did include a
gestational age.
SENATOR GIESSEL said she would welcome an amendment to put a
time in. She chose not to include a penalty but would be
amenable to that amendment if someone offered it.
SENATOR BEGICH asked whether she had considered the impact on
medical malpractice insurance because of the ambiguity around
when a doctor has to determine viability.
SENATOR GIESSEL said obstetrics is a high-liability profession
to begin with. It is left to the judgment of the physician. She
doesn't see that the bill increases their liability in any way.
1:56:02 PM
SENATOR BEGICH mentioned the phrase "unable" or "unwilling" and
asked if a parent were willing but unable, if the state would be
obligated to place that child in a Child in Need of Aid
situation.
SENATOR GIESSEL said many parents who feel unable to take care
of a child somehow manage and are able to raise some wonderful
kids. A former neurosurgeon was raised by a mother unable to
read. That mom probably would have said it was more than she
could do, but she did it. It is the parent who decides whether
they are unwilling or unable to raise the child.
SENATOR BEGICH said he had a conflict with the statement "best
to survive." He asked if this will restrict choices for a doctor
to choose a procedure that might be less risky for the mother
but makes it less likely that the fetus will survive.
SENATOR GIESSEL said she was struggling to understand the
question. The best method of delivery for the child to survive
is placing a child in the head down position, inducing labor,
and delivering the child. If there are placental abnormalities,
it might involve a C-section. That is all up to the experienced
and knowledgeable clinician.
1:59:14 PM
SENATOR BEGICH asked if this means that the fetus takes
preference over the patient, if a doctor has to make a call
about which is more important.
SENATOR GIESSEL said let them review the scenario. This is a
woman facing a brutal decision of delivering a baby early or
abortion, which in these age-weeks involve dismemberment of the
child's body to remove it from the uterus. This is a mother's
choice. The physician will care for both patients to the best of
his ability. She cannot predict what those decisions will be.
She expects most likely it will be in favor of the mother.
2:00:20 PM
SENATOR BEGICH said the wording in the bill specifically states
for the fetus to best survive. He said he wanted to be clear
about that.
MS. NORE said the bill states on page 1, starting on line 10,
"the method of terminating the pregnancy does not present a
serious risk to the life or health of the pregnant woman."
SENATOR BEGICH asked if there was an estimate from the
Department of Law about what litigation might entail for this
legislation. He asked if that was something normally done.
SENATOR GIESSEL said there is no expectation that this will be
litigated. The Department of Law doesn't usually opine on what
litigation might cost. She said she just saw the fiscal note
from DHSS and found it interesting that they assume that preterm
infants would be disabled. She maintained that was not
necessarily the case.
CHAIR WILSON said that assumption raised his eyebrows also. He
asked how many children would be disabled. He wondered whether
it was a worst-case scenario to not underestimate the cost. He
suggested it might be taken up in another committee.
SENATOR MICCICHE said there is a low probability of this
situation. Page 6 of the 2016 State of Alaska Induced
Termination of Pregnancy Statistics states that nearly all, 99.5
percent of induced terminations, were performed at 13 weeks or
less gestational age. In 2013, 91.6 percent of induced
terminations performed in the U.S. involved pregnancies of 13
weeks or less. He said he appreciates the approach of viability.
He said he has to think about whether that term is clear enough
or whether gestational weeks is needed.
SENATOR GIESSEL suggested he look at page 11 of the 2016
document, the last row on Table 8a is "Not Stated." Those are
most likely falling in those later weeks of gestation. The
clinician chose not to state the gestational age, but it is
decreasing and after about 17-20 weeks, they are looking at 6 in
2016. It is not volumes and volumes. About 5.7 percent fell in
that category in 2016. She reiterated what the Talmud said, "One
who saves a life, it's as if he saved an entire world."
2:05:50 PM
CHAIR WILSON opened public testimony on SB 124.
2:06:56 PM
RACHEL GEARHART, representing self, opposed SB 124. She said she
is a social worker. She noticed slide 17, premature survival
rate, has Australian statistics. She suggested looking at U.S.
survival rates statistics. She expressed confusion with the
bill. If termination is needed as determined by a woman and her
highly educated medical provider, she questioned why would her
abortion procedure turn into a delivery for a child she has
determined she is unable to care for. The woman does not need to
justify it to anyone. She posited that a baby born alive in this
scenario is likely to require significant medical care. She said
the medical care in the attached supporting documentation, the
New York Times article [Premature Babies May Survive at 22 Weeks
if Treated, Study Finds] is probably not available in Alaska.
The closest level IV NICU [Neonatal Intensive Care Unit] is in
Seattle. The article states that many babies, if they do make
it, will survive with severe handicaps. She pointed out that the
foster care system is already overburdened with perfectly
healthy children. Foster families who can work with children
with complex medical needs are not in high supply. If any fetus
were born alive and turned over to the Office of Children's
Services, this fiscal note would be grossly underestimated, she
said. She cautioned against getting between a woman and her
provider and suggested focusing instead on a workable state
budget that supports state residents who are already in need of
safety and security.
2:10:06 PM
ALYSON CURREY, Legislative Liaison, Planned Parenthood Votes
Northwest and Hawaii, opposed SB 124. She said SB 124 would
limit abortions later in pregnancy and restrict doctors' ability
to exercise their professional expertise about what is best for
their patients. Nearly 99 percent of abortions take place before
21 weeks, well before fetal viability. When later abortions do
occur, this bill would force physicians to alter how they
practice medicine to prioritize the fetus over the health of the
woman. It forces health care providers to substitute the will of
the legislature for their ability to use their medical expertise
to treat each of their patients on a case-by-case basis. It is a
dangerous, unsafe, unfounded precedent, motivated by politics,
not medicine. She said this bill attacks women and families
already facing the heart wrenching decision of ending a
pregnancy. Abortions later in pregnancy are performed almost
exclusively in cases of serious and catastrophic fetal
abnormalities. This bill is a cruel restriction for families
already facing tragic circumstances.
2:12:21 PM
SONJA BARNARD-GRAVEL, representing self, opposed SB 124. She
said medical procedures should be left to doctors and the
desires of their patients. As a young Alaskan woman, she has a
close relationship with her doctor and trusts her medical
expertise. It frightens her that if this bill is passed, it
would limit the care she and other doctors can provide for their
patients. Late-term abortions are almost always performed in
cases where the woman or fetus is in danger. This bill tells a
woman she is incapable of making her own decisions. It also
places another child in an already overcrowded foster care
system.
2:13:42 PM
LIZ RANGEL, representing self, opposed SB 124. She said it is
inappropriate to make decisions about a women's body in a
political setting. The sole purpose of the bill is to place
obstacles between a woman and access to a safe abortion. The
bill is purposefully vague and encourages physicians to place a
woman's life and well-being second to the fetus. It is a
dangerous bill. She wants to see the Senate value Alaskan women
and their lives when it votes.
2:14:46 PM
BRENAE BAKER, representing self, opposed SB 124. She said the
bill is offensive, condescending, and medically inaccurate. It
is a waste of time and resources for constituents and taxpayers.
Focus on actual work to better communities and the state.
2:15:21 PM}
ALYSSA QUINTYNE, representing self, opposed SB 124. She said the
terminology in the bill is medically ambiguous and conflicts
with the medical profession's ability to provide adequate care
for their patients. The language confuses the procedure of
removal vs. live birth and does not define what live birth means
for the fetus. It burdens state and legal agencies to care for
premature and medically sensitive infants. This is not a family-
oriented bill. It is an attack on reproductive rights and
access. It is an attack on medical staff and providers to
undermine their expertise. It is an attack on state agencies.
The state needs to focus efforts to providers, agencies, and
organizations that support access to safe, sound, and consensual
care so families can make the best decisions for their families.
2:17:15 PM
KASEY CASORF, representing self, opposed SB 124. She said she is
a freshman at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). When she
was 16, her best friend was raped on the UAF campus. This made
her aware of her vulnerability as a woman. She lives in a world
where attacks on her body come from all sides. Having her
government attempt to limit the power of doctors to treat her
body with the respect it deserves is unacceptable. SB 124 is an
unreasonable, medically unsound, and politically motivated
attack on her body's autonomy. It sets a dangerous precedent by
substituting the agenda of politicians in a situation where only
her doctor's expertise should be present. It is insensible to
hold hearings on fundamentally unnecessary legislation while
Alaska is in the midst of budget crisis. Focus attention on
Alaska's real problems instead of a medically unsafe bill. Women
count on them to defend their bodies, minds, and futures.
2:19:10 PM
ROSE O'HARA-JOLLEY, representing self, opposed SB 124. She said
her family survived the Holocaust and many more did not. She
finds it personally offensive to create a false comparison
between the Holocaust and those who survived and her right to
her body's autonomy and the state's decisions in it.
2:20:07 PM
HANNAH HILL, representing self, opposed SB 124. She said SB 124
serves to substitute the knowledge of medical practitioners for
personal ideology using medically inaccurate and legally vague
language. The vast preponderance of so-called late-term
abortions is because of imminent maternal death or fetal
abnormalities that are incompatible with life. Per the
Guttmacher Institute., nine percent of abortions are performed
after the first trimester, and of those, one percent happens
after 21 weeks. They say the personal is political, but in this
case the political is personal. Leave personal health care
decisions to people and to the medical care of their doctors.
2:21:20 PM
At ease.
2:21:31 PM
CHAIR WILSON reconvened the meeting.
CINDY ROEDIGER, representing self, opposed SB 124. She said she
is an abolitionist and follower of Jesus Christ. This bill does
not recognize the child in the womb to be in need of aid at the
time the abortionist is in the act of murdering them. If the
child survives attempted murder, then the child may be a Child
in Need of Aid. What sick, twisted thinking this is. In Romans
13, Paul viewed governing authorities as being established by
God to restrain evil and promote a just and peaceful social
order. God is the authority and has placed Senator Giessel in
authority. She read from Isiah 10:1, 10:2, Proverbs 24, Psalms
94:16, and Proverbs 22:8. God is sovereign and all-knowing, and
he sees through this wicked and evil bill. She pleaded with
Senator Giessel to create a version of HB 250 for the Senate to
abolish abortion in Alaska.
2:25:54 PM
PATRICK MARTIN, Alaska Right to Life, opposed SB 124. He said
Schindler did not create or perpetuate laws that slaughtered
innocent Jews, but by creating two classes of unborn babies, SB
124 takes the role of the Nazi government and not the role of
the courageous Mr. Schindler. Right to Life would like to submit
that the best way of surviving an abortion is not be aborted.
Protections must be applied to all babies. Life begins at
conception. This is the same faulty logic as in Roe vs Wade,
that the preborn fetus has no rights and can be killed at any
point up to birth. Right to Life opposes SB 124 because it
creates two classes of babies, those that mothers can kill and
those they cannot.
At ease.
2:29:29 PM
CHAIR WILSON reconvened the meeting.
RICK SMALL, representing self, opposed SB 124. He said he is
representing himself as a representative of Lord Jesus Christ.
God Almighty clearly stated you shall not murder and did not
place any size or age limits on his direct command. HB 250
should be discussed. He has been asking Senator Hughes to
introduce the same bill in the Senate. He is asking Senator
Wilson to introduce an exact duplicate of HB 250 and HB 251 into
the Senate. Five Alaskan babies are being murdered today. The
Alaska Legislature has the primary responsibility of protecting
innocent humans in this state. Human abortion is a hate crime
and silence is consent. The right to murder children is not in
the U.S. Constitution or the Alaska Constitution. SB 124 does
not abolish abortion. May God have mercy for allowing this
holocaust ten times worse than the Nazi Holocaust to continue in
this state.
2:32:32 PM
CHARITY CARMODY, Founder/President, Beacon Hill, supported SB
124. She said Beacon Hill is a licensed child placement agency
and nonprofit that deals in all things child welfare and
recruits for adoptive families. She supports SB 124 as a person
who has fought her entire career for the rights of children to
be protected because the bill does this. It deals with the issue
of viability and in all cases, the state tries to protect
children most at risk. She is the mother of three children, a
foster mother, an adoptive mother. She has a son with cerebral
palsy. This helps protect all children, and even female
children. When she hears women say this is against the female
gender, she disagrees. It keeps them from being aborted or not
protected if born alive.
2:34:20 PM
MELISSA GOLDSTEIN, Legal Fellow, ACLU of Alaska, opposed SB 124.
She said abortion is a safe and legal medical procedure, a
fundamental right grounded in the rights of privacy. It may
force women seeking to terminate a pregnancy to undergo a
dangerous, invasive medical procedure instead of one of the many
safe alternatives that are available. It interferes with
physicians' medical judgements and the doctor/patient
relationship because it compels physicians to perform procedures
that are not necessarily in accordance with medical judgment.
Many hospitals in Alaska already have restrictive abortion
policies. These policies mean induction would not be possible in
those facilities. SB 124 is unenforceable. The gestation period
is not defined, and it does not suggest how physicians and
patients would comply with the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has
stated that the state has a legitimate interest in seeing that
abortion, like any other medical procedure, must be performed in
conditions that ensure maximum safety for the patient. They are
concerned that SB 124 is unconstitutional. They have
successfully litigated unconstitutional laws that target women's
reproductive rights. Recently the State of Alaska paid $1
million in attorney fees for a similar type of litigation. On a
personal note, her grandfather was on Schindler's list. She
finds the comparison between a woman's right to terminate a
pregnancy to what her grandfather went through offensive.
2:37:13 PM
TOM LAKOSH, representing self, opposed SB 124. He said that
while he appreciates the senator's efforts to see that support
is offered by the state to prematurely born children, the
attempt is unconstitutionally restrictive of a woman's right to
privacy. The bill should be amended so that a woman who wants to
surrender a premature child can. This essentially gives the
state the right to show up in a doctor's office with a speculum.
He asked who becomes liable if a woman dies in the attempt to
deliver a viable child. Many issues exist for liability.
Although he believes in the sanctity of life, this is not a
viable piece of legislation. The budget cannot sustain repeated
constitutional challenges to lousy legislation.
2:39:09 PM
WILLIAM DEATON, representing self, Cordova, Alaska, supported SB
124. He said he wants the bill amended so that a physician
besides the abortionist be there on hand to save the child if
the child survives the abortion. He said he does not trust an
abortionist who is attempting to murder the child to save the
child outside of the womb. He is completely prolife. If this
bill saves even one life he supports it. The U.S. is one of
seven countries that allows abortions past 20 weeks, including
North Korea and China. He noted a child in the womb has separate
DNA from the mother and should not be removed like a tumor.
2:41:09 PM}
ZHENIA PETERSON, representing self, opposed SB 124. She said the
decision for an abortion should be left between a doctor and
patient. In Alaska it is already hard to get access to
reproductive health care, comprehensive sexual education, and,
of course, abortion. The decision to get an abortion is not an
easy one, but it should be made with the care of a trusted
physician. Focus on finding programs that teach more medically
accurate sexual education and healthy relationships to avoid
unintended pregnancies.
2:42:35 PM
BESSI ODOM, representing self, opposed SB 124. She said with
proposed legislation like SB 124, legislators are truly not
listening to all Alaskan women, including rural and urban. Women
need the assurance that they will not be prevented or deterred
from seeking care because of policies that are in place. They
should be concerned about the risks they will put women of
various communities in. SB 124 would force women to carry
pregnancies to term regardless of their wishes and jeopardizes
the health of the women. Sometimes a woman has had to choose
between an abortion and her own life. This ball fails to
consider a mother and her health.
2:43:52 PM
ROBIN SMITH, representing self, opposed SB 124. She said Alaska
is struggling to finance its government yet Senator Giessel is
wasting Alaska's time and money and is not focusing on Alaska's
first priority. Senator Giessel is part of the Republican
coalition that reduced children's PFDs to fund the government,
potentially literally taking food, health care, and educational
options away from kids. There are cuts in school funding and
less money for health and human services. Why focus energies on
restricting women's right to abortion. Those seeking late-term
abortions are often adolescents or women with life-threating
circumstances or the fetus has severe abnormalities or
impairments. In society only pregnant women are viewed as
morally incompetent. Society does not force parents to donate
kidneys, eyes, or part of a liver to children, but demands women
put their lives at risk. Women's health must be considered
first, she said.
2:46:48 PM
KAREN PERRY, representing self, opposed SB 124. She said she
opposes the bill because it is a murder bill. It is a ridiculous
bill that purports to be prolife but actually condones murder.
Abortion is child sacrifice. Instead of working to stop it, the
bill deceives people. It is deceitful and evil of Cathy Giessel
and Cathy Tilton in the House to sponsor prodeath bills. That is
not what their party platform supports. Support a companion bill
to HB 250, which protects life at conception. She quoted from
Psalm 94, verses 20 and 21. The bill continues to condemn
innocents to death.
2:49:33 PM
CHAIR WILSON closed public testimony on SB 124.
2:49:56 PM
At ease.
2:51:02 PM
CHAIR WILSON reconvened the meeting and asked if there were any
amendments. Finding none, he asked for a motion to move the bill
out of committee.
2:51:41 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said this is a bill that Judiciary needs to
review. He moved SB 124, version 30-LS0429\U, from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
2:52:05 PM
SENATOR BEGICH objected. He said since no one supported the
bill, neither those who opposed the bill for reasons of privacy
nor those who opposed abortion, the committee was not ready to
move the bill out.
2:53:00 PM
CHAIR WILSON said some of the questions about liability and
constitutionality will be handled best in Judiciary, the next
committee of referral.
2:53:20 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he was not sure that the HSS committee was
the appropriate first stop, but since that is where the bill is,
he thinks Judiciary is the appropriate body to review the
legalities. He noted the testimony heard was an example of the
true definition of strange bedfellows.
2:53:52 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked for a roll call vote.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Giessel, von Imhof,
Micciche, and Wilson voted in favor of moving SB 124 from
committee and Senator Begich voted against it. Therefore, the
motion to move SB 124 from committee passed by a 4:1 vote.
2:55:09 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that SB 124 moves from the Senate Health
and Social Services Standing Committee with a vote of 4:1.