Legislature(2017 - 2018)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/12/2018 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| SB122 | |
| SB124 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 124-ABORTION PROCEDURES; CHILD SURRENDER
1:51:32 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 124, "An Act
relating to the duties of physicians and health care
practitioners when performing or inducing abortions; providing
that a child removed from a pregnant woman's womb alive after an
abortion may be surrendered and found to be a child in need of
aid; and providing for an effective date."
He opened public testimony on SB 124.
1:53:07 PM
AARON SPRATT, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 124. He comes from a faith tradition that values
life from the beginning to the end and he comes from a faith
tradition that serves his neighbor, particularly when that
neighbor can't defend himself or his personal rights. Abortion
is the taking of a life and life begins in the womb. He prays
for the women who have been victims of abortion. He understands
there may be reasons a woman might not want to go through a
pregnancy and he doesn't deny that the woman has a right to
bodily integrity. He does oppose and deny that the woman has the
right to force her will on her child by killing it. Life in the
womb has the right of existence because it is a live human
being. All life deserves honor and respect and certainly
protection. He asked the committee to protect the babies in a
mother's womb.
1:55:31 PM
SENATOR KELLY joined the committee.
1:56:28 PM
DONNA MEINERS, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 124. She has worked as a nurse in Alaska for
over 30 years and has supervised over 50 staff nurses and
managed a multimillion dollar budget in a health care facility.
SB 124 does not address any pressing health and social service
needs of a majority of Alaskans. Survey data collected through
an initiative by DHSS and the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium reports the top five health concerns of Alaskans are:
1) alcohol use; 2) the cost of health care; 3) diet and exercise
and obesity; 4) substance abuse; and 5) violence. She asked
where the legislation is in addressing these needs. SB 124
requires an increased burden of care to providers caught in the
middle of politics while they are struggling to meet the needs
of Alaskan women, couples, and families. The bill is a clear
effort to chip away at reproductive rights and is sure to be
challenged in court. SB 124 does not address the real needs of
Alaskans and will lead to a budget drain to defend it.
1:59:00 PM
PATRICK MARTIN, Alaska Right to Life, testified in opposition to
124. They oppose the bill for two specific reasons. First, they
believe it is never okay to kill an innocent pre-born baby.
Second, they don't believe anyone should ever vote to authorize
an abortionist to kill innocent pre-born babies. He posed the
question of when does life begin. He opined that biology and
embryology makes it clear that life begins at conception. He
said human rights also begin at conception. SB 124 authorizes
abortionists to kill children in the womb by authorizing the
abortionist to subjectively determine viability and then
amending the abortion procedure accordingly. If the baby in the
womb is not viable he may proceed with the abortion procedure
that most effectively kills the child.
Under the rulings in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the health
of the mother criteria is broadly defined and could allow an
abortionist to proceed to kill the child in the womb during all
nine months of pregnancy. Alaska Right to Life does not believe
that SB 124 will block access to a single abortion. If it does,
it has the potential of forcing the abortionist to induce a pre-
term birth on an otherwise healthy mother and baby, placing both
at risk. He urged the committee to hold SB 124 in committee and
asked the sponsor to withdraw the bill. Instead, introduce a
bill that opposes abortion in all forms, for all reasons, at all
stages and ages.
2:04:22 PM
MICHAEL PANKIN, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 124. His reading of the bill is that it would
be protecting botched abortions - children who were slated for
abortion, the abortion was attempted, and the child was born
alive. He paraphrased the preamble to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska to augment the argument that SB 124 should pass.
2:06:21 PM
BARBARA ANDERSEN, Accountability Alliance Alaska, Seward,
Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 124. The bill was brought
forth in a world of hypocrisy where truth is slandered and facts
disregarded. It is contradictory and insidious in nature. It
disregards the fact that a human being is at stake in the hands
of men who should be protecting all people. She cited Romans I:
18-21 and reminded the committee that HB 250, the Life at
Conception Act, protects the life of a child and properly
defines abortion as murder. That bill has been purposely ignored
by two legislators who introduced their own bills which results
in the scriptures conclusive definition: "Claiming to be wise,
they became fools." She urged the committee to gut SB 124 and
replace it with the language from HB 250.
2:09:42 PM
ALYSON CURREY, Legislative Liaison, Planned Parenthood Votes,
Juneau, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 124. Planned
Parenthood provides quality, compassionate, evidence-based
health care, including abortion services. Their providers follow
rigorous standards and guidelines using the most current medical
evidence available, including guidance from the Centers for
Disease Control, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, and
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The
bill would restrict doctors' ability to exercise their
professional expertise about what is best for their patients.
Nearly 99 percent of abortions take place prior to 21 weeks,
before fetal viability. For the few later abortions that occur,
the bill would force physicians to alter how they practice
medicine to comply with ideological restrictions that are not
grounded in science to prioritize the health of the fetus over
the health of the woman. This is an unfounded precedent
motivated by politics. Later term abortions are performed almost
exclusively in cases of serious fetal abnormalities. The bill is
a cruel restriction for women and families already facing
difficult circumstances.
SB 124 raises serious legal and constitutional concerns that is
outlined in the written testimony submitted to the committee.
Similar language in the bill has been struck down by the U.S.
Supreme Court as impermissibly vague leaving physicians unclear
as to their legal responsibilities. Women deserve high quality
and medically sound health care. Leading medical groups oppose
attempts to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and
disregard for their patients' safety. SB 124 is not well written
and would be difficult for providers to comply. She urged the
committee to oppose SB 124.
CHAIR COGHILL cautioned testifiers not to assign a motive to the
sponsor.
2:13:04 PM
ANNA THOMPSON, representing self, Petersburg, Alaska, testified
in opposition to SB 124. The decision to terminate a pregnancy
should be between a woman, her family, and her physician. Health
care provider , not politicians, are equipped to make medical
decisions about their patients. She agreed with Ms. Currey's
testimony. The vague language in SB 124 would make it
challenging for physicians to comply and avoid liability. Alaska
should be working to ensure high-quality medical care for
pregnant women, not forcing physicians to consider legal
penalties before helping a patient. The latter is dangerous and
misguided. She encouraged the members to vote against SB 124.
2:14:44 PM
JULIA CAULFIELD, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 124. She believes a woman's choice to end a
pregnancy should be between herself and her physician.
Politicians should not be involved. SB 124 jeopardizes women's
health when they are already making a difficult decision to end
a pregnancy. If the woman seeks an abortion later in pregnancy,
the bill forces a physician to put the health of the fetus
first. This is unsafe and medically unfounded. Physicians are
experts in their field and should be able to treat their
patients on an individual basis. SB 124 is unreasonable and
unworkable for physicians and simultaneously prevents women from
getting the care they need. It is bad for Alaskan women and bad
for doctors.
2:16:14 PM
ROBIN SMITH, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 124. Most women who have later term abortions
are doing so because the pregnancy has gone terribly wrong.
These difficult decisions don't need government interference.
Young adolescents also have later term abortions. They are
likely to deny the pregnancy out of fear of the response of
their parents or the shame of seeking an abortion. It is often
difficult for these teens to move forward and get the help they
need. There is also the problem of the lack of abortion services
in Alaska. Just four communities in the state offer these
services. Not only is there the cost of the abortion, but also
the cost of travel. This is extremely difficult for someone in
the villages to maneuver. Finally, a woman's right must be
paramount. The bill is not a priority and the legislature should
focus on the fiscal crisis in Alaska.
2:19:11 PM
ZHENIA C. PETERSON, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 124. The decision to have an
abortion should be between a woman and her doctor. In Alaska it
is difficult to access reproductive health care, comprehensive
sexual education, and abortion. The bill would infringe on a
woman's legal right to have an abortion and would penalize
physicians who are doing their job. She suggested the
legislature focus on funding programs that teach medically
accurate sex education and healthy relationships to avoid
unintended pregnancies. She urged the members to vote no on SB
124.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the audio coming out of Anchorage is
very poor.
2:20:56 PM
PAM SAMASH, representing self, Nenana, Alaska, said she wanted
to remind people that it was the State Medical Board that
decided to allow late term abortions. She said the fact that
Planned Parenthood doesn't support SB 124, makes her want it 10
times more. She urged the committee to pass the bill and save a
baby.
2:22:36 PM
XOCHITL LOPEZ-AYALA, representing self, Juneau, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 124. She can't understand why
access to abortion should come up in the legislature every year.
Government has no place in decisions a woman makes about her
body. Focus on resources for sex education and access to birth
control and family planning contraception that will help women,
particularly Native women and women of color like herself.
Protect Alaska women and do not pass SB 124.
2:24:50 PM
SERENE ROSE O'HARA-JOLLEY, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 124. She directed attention to the
fiscal note and opined that the money would be better spent on
family planning services and access to reproductive care before
the need for an abortion arises. The safe and medically sound
way to reduce the need for abortions is sex education, family
planning, and access to birth control. She urged the committee
to support using the money Alaska has in a sensible way and make
the state safer for all Alaskans. Oppose SB 124.
2:26:32 PM
ANN RAPPOPORT, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition to SB 124. She referenced an editorial in the
Anchorage Daily News that talked about why SB 124 is such a bad
idea. It raised the question of whether those who are working to
prevent abortion are stepping up to adopt those babies who would
each likely need extensive medical and social services care
throughout their lives. The legislature has already
significantly cut funding for health and social services.
Passing SB 124 would result in another huge unfunded mandate.
DHSS determined that should the bill pass, it would cost nearly
$2 million in the first year and nearly $4 million a few years
later. This money could be put to much better use in
reproductive health planning. Significantly, the bill is
estimated to potentially affect two fetuses a year with an
increase in the next few years. She questioned why the
legislature is spending time on this bill when the state is on
the brink of fiscal collapse and classroom sizes are increasing.
A woman's reproductive decisions are not the government's
business. She urged the committee to vote no on SB 124.
2:29:53 PM
LIZ RANGEL, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 124. It is inappropriate to politicize
decisions on women's bodies. Bills like SB 124 have the sole
purpose of placing obstacles between women and their access to a
safe abortion. The vague language makes the bill medically
unsafe and encourages the physician to place the woman's life
second to that of the fetus. She asked the Senate to place more
value on children that are already born by funding education. As
an Alaskan woman, she urged the committee to vote no on SB 124.
2:31:14 PM
MELISSA RHODES-REESE, representing self, Juneau, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 124. The factors that go into the
decision to have an abortion are personal, private, and between
a woman, her family, and her medical professional. The decision
to have an abortion is difficult, particularly when it is late
term. In 2017, 8 percent of abortions in Alaska were late term.
The circumstances are tremendous. She shared a personal family
experience and reiterated her opposition to SB 124.
2:33:18 PM
RICK SMALL, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, said he is an
abolitionist of human abortion. Just as there were abolitionists
of slavery, he doesn't believe the murder of human beings should
be regulated. The practice should be abolished. Alaska law
states the unborn child is worthy of protection, but that
protection does not apply if a woman decides to have an
abortion. That is insane and evil. SB 124 does not address
abortion as murder, but it is premeditated murder of an innocent
human being during development. It is time for Christians to
rise up and work to abolish abortion, not regulate it.
2:35:04 PM
SENATOR KELLY commented that he didn't believe the abolitionist
were against the underground railroad.
2:35:30 PM
CHAIR COGHILL stated that he would hold public testimony open on
SB 124.
2:35:49 PM
JASMINE LEREMIA, representing self, Petersburg, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 124. She is 17 and her perspective
of SB 124 is that it asks for underdeveloped, unborn children to
undergo a premature induced birth. She doesn't see the rationale
behind forcing babies to live a life where they are without a
mother from birth. They would suffer from not having the
mother/child bond that shapes their development. Additionally,
these premature babies would fall behind their peers because
their premature development is done outside the womb. Her
brother was born three months premature and nearly died multiple
times in his first year. He also suffered from social and
academic learning disabilities until middle school. He had a
fulltime mother. The negative effects on premature babies'
development without a fulltime mother would likely be more
potent. SB 124 also leaves open the important questions of the
plan for these premature children, how they would be kept in a
state of healthy physical and psychological development, and the
role the state would take on by taking charge of these unwanted,
premature children. The cost of a program to support this bill
would be detrimental to the state in this time of financial
crisis. SB 124 is unusually cruel to the children it would
affect and it is inefficient and financially detrimental to the
state.
2:38:09 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked Mr. Martin if he recalls any other time
that Planned Parenthood and Alaska Right to Life came out on the
same side of a piece of legislation.
PATRICK MARTIN, Alaska Right to Life, said not that he recalls
but they are not on the same side here either. The reasons for
their opposition are completely different.
2:39:12 PM
CHAIR COGHILL said he would keep public testimony open on SB 124
and hold the bill for further consideration. He would take
amendments on Wednesday.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 124 - Letter of Support - Pro Life Alaska.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 124 |
| SB 124 - Letter of Support - Alaska Family Action.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 124 |
| SB 124 - Letters of Opposition #2.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 124 |
| SB 124 - Letters of Opposition.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 124 |
| SB 122 - CRP 2017-2018 Workplan.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 - CRP-2017 Annual-Report.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 - OCS Response to CRP 2017 Annual Report.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 - Sectional Summary.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 - Version J.PDF |
SJUD 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |
| SB 122 - CRP-BIA Providers Conference Presentation.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2018 1:30:00 PM |
SB 122 |