Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/30/2004 01:05 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 30 - ABORTION: INFORMED CONSENT; INFORMATION [Contains discussion of an amendment that would conform a provision of SB 30 to a provision of HB 472; contains adoption of what would become known as HCR 36 for the purpose of changing the title of SB 30.] Number 0022 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 30(JUD) am, "An Act relating to information and services available to pregnant women and other persons; and ensuring informed consent before an abortion may be performed, except in cases of medical emergency." [Before the committee was HCS CSSB 30(HES).] CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that members' packets now include a proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for SB 30, Version 23- LS0193\O, Mischel, 3/22/04, and a legal analysis by the attorney general dated March 30, 2004, regarding that proposed HCS. Number 0100 VANESSA TONDINI, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, offered to explain the changes made by the proposed HCS. Number 0167 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt the proposed HCS for SB 30, Version 23-LS0193\O, Mischel, 3/22/04, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version O was before the committee. MS. TONDINI relayed that Version O was created in response to the attorney general's March 18 legal analysis outlining numerous areas in a prior iteration of SB 30 that needed to be addressed. One issue that was of concern was that the bill should contain language requiring that the information in the pamphlet be "unbiased information that is reviewed and approved for medical accuracy and appropriateness by recognized obstetrics and gynecological specialists." Section 1, paragraphs (4)-(5), and Section 2, subsection (a), paragraphs (6)-(9), of Version O now contain that language. Additionally, Version O now stipulates that the aforementioned review will be performed by the State Medical Board. MS. TONDINI relayed that another issue of concern was that should the aforementioned change be made to Section 2, although changes made regarding information on gestational development and other information will be more legally defensible, it will not eliminate the possibility of a challenge, on privacy and equal protection grounds, that the material is intended to shock rather than inform. Also of concern was that the definitions in Section 2 should be medically accurate, and the most recent legal analysis still offers this as a concern. The definition section of Version O is on page 4, lines 9-16, Section 2, subsection (c)(1)-(4), and provides definitions for: "abortion", "fertilization", "gestational age", and "unborn child". She mentioned that she is providing members with copies of what she said she believes to be medically accurate definitions of the aforementioned terms that she gathered from several medical web sites and medical dictionaries. MS. TONDINI noted that another issue of concern was that the bill should contain language specifying that there will be a disclaimer on the web site regarding the graphic and/or sensitive nature of the information contained on the web site. She said that such language is now included in subsection (a)(10) of Section 2, on page 10, lines 5-6. Still another issue of concern was that the bill should stipulate that the pamphlet will only include those providers who consent to being included; that language can be found on page 2, line 30, of Version O. Additionally of concern was that the findings section of a prior iteration the bill referred to immunity, but the text in Section 4 of that prior iteration did not use the term immunity and instead simply provided for affirmative defenses. This inconsistency has been addressed in Version O by removing "immunity" from the findings section, Section 1, and keeping the provisions in Section 4 regarding affirmative defenses. Number 0481 MS. TONDINI relayed that another issue of concern was that requiring a 24-hour waiting period could raise constitutional issues; therefore, that requirement has been eliminated from Version O, specifically from Section 5, subsection (c). A final issue of concern expressed in the attorney general's March 18 legal analysis is that under this legislation, abortion will be the only medical procedure that has its own informed consent requirements set out in statute; Version O does not change this, so equal protection issues may still exist. MS. TONDINI noted that the attorney general's March 18 legal analysis also raised some technical points. One, that there should be a medically accurate definition of abortion; Version O - page 4, line 10 - says that the term "abortion" has the meaning given in AS 18.16.090. Two, that the inclusion of [child care] in Section 2, subsection (a)(3), is misleading; Version O deletes that reference. Three, that although inclusion of exceptions for rape and incest are necessary, neither rape nor incest is legally defined in statute; Version O now contains reference - in Section 5, subsection (d) - to the statutes pertaining to those crimes. MS. TONDINI continued. Four, that the language requiring that information on alcohol use and drug use during pregnancy be provided did not specify whether the information should pertain to legal drugs or illegal drugs; Version O now specifies - in Section 2, subsection (a)(9) - that the information required should pertain to use of illegal drugs. She mentioned that the issue of whether to also require that information on tobacco use during pregnancy be included might be discussed later. Five, that there is no need, if there is a signed and dated certificate showing informed consent, for the certificate to be stamped as well; Version O does not contain language pertaining to certificates. Six, that the department should be granted regulatory authority to create the pamphlet required by SB 30; Version O provides that authority in Section 2, subsection (b), on page 4, lines 7-8. MS. TONDINI offered her belief that the attorney general's March 30 legal analysis agrees that almost all of the aforementioned concerns have been addressed in Version O. The only other issue that the committee may still wish to address, she offered, pertains to the language on page 4, lines 30-31, which stipulates that a woman must be domiciled or physically present in the state for 30 days before the abortion. This language is part of current law, she relayed, but offered her understanding that there is a distinction between being domiciled, which she surmised meant being physically present with the intent to remain, and residency, which she surmised meant being physically present in the state for 30 days. She suggested that if such a requirement is kept in statute, it should be clarified with regard to the legislature's intent. Number 0784 SENATOR FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, shared his appreciation for the committee's patience and all the work that's been done on SB 30. Number 0803 REPRESENTATIVE OGG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, to say, on page 4, line 3, that the information pertain to alcohol, tobacco, legal drugs, and illegal drugs. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0881 REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 4, lines 30-31: Delete all material Number 0889 CHAIR McGUIRE objected [for the purpose of discussion]. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that the language which would be deleted by Amendment 2 precludes a woman from getting an abortion if she hasn't lived in the state for 30 days. He opined that such a restriction is probably unconstitutional, pointed out that no other medical procedure has such a restriction, and surmised that it would require a woman who is right at the end of her first trimester of pregnancy, for example, and who's just moved to the state, to wait until her second trimester before getting an abortion. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked what other states do with regard to this issue, and asked for confirmation that the language which would be deleted via Amendment 2 is part of current law. REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied: "It is part of the current law. I think ... it might have been added as part of the informed consent law that was passed a couple of years ago that is up in the supreme court now, but I'm not so sure when it was [adopted] ...." SENATOR DYSON mentioned that he did not know that either. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he cannot see a reason why they should tell a woman who picks one procedure that she has to live in Alaska for 30 days, particularly given that the ramifications of waiting 30 days are that it might become too late or too dangerous to have an abortion, and also because anybody else, for any other procedure, doesn't have to live in Alaska for 30 days. REPRESENTATIVE OGG suggested that the reason such language is in statute is to stop "form shopping." REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he didn't think that people come to Alaska just to get abortions, and suggested that it is probably easier and cheaper to get an abortion in another state. SENATOR DYSON remarked that preventing someone from form shopping is a persuasive argument for keeping the current language as is, because if the parental consent provision is ultimately struck down, then minors may come to Alaska in order to get around the parental consent requirements of other states. Number 1212 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked: I believe that the note [to that statute] says that the Department of law does not currently enforce that section, and I believe the implication is that it's of doubtful constitutionality. The case that comes to mind, a case out of Washington DC from the U.S. Supreme Court a number of years ago, Shapiro v. Thompson (ph), said that in dealing with case involving fundamental rights, it is unconstitutional to impinge on the person's right to travel; in that case, it involved welfare. And recent cases have expanded that to include the privileges and immunities clause as a basis for striking down provisions like this. I do not think that this would survive a constitutional challenge under either the ... [U.S.] Constitution or, frankly, under the Alaska [State] Constitution's right to privacy, and I think that this would be struck down without question. And ... I think the attorney general's very correct in its determination not to enforce it, because it would be a needless waste of state resources. It's on the books ... [though] it's not being enforced by any administration and it's unconstitutional, so I support the amendment. I'd like to see us pass things that are constitutional. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that ultimately, there's a philosophical rift among many legislators on an issue where there are really good arguments on both sides, but as long as the legislature is going to recognize that a woman has the right to choose an abortion, the language that Amendment 2 proposes to delete is an impediment to a legal right, an impediment that doesn't exist for anybody else for any other medical procedure. He said he believes that [the current language] is an inappropriate impediment to a constitutional right. Number 1372 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether the language that Amendment 2 proposes to delete would apply to victims of incest or rape. SENATOR DYSON said he did not intend for it to apply in those situations. CHAIR McGUIRE asked Senator Dyson whether he would be willing to accept a friendly amendment to that effect. SENATOR DYSON said yes. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he would not accept a friendly amendment to Amendment 2, adding, "I just think ... it's a constitutional right ...." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM mentioned that he isn't sure whether an abortion would even be preformed within the first 30 days [of a woman's pregnancy]. CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the provisions pertaining to rape and incest are on page 6, under proposed AS 18.16.060(d). REPRESENTATIVE OGG remarked that such is a tough issue to deal with. Number 1519 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara, Gruenberg, and Samuels voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Ogg, Holm, and McGuire voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-3. Number 1535 REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page Two, Lines 11-12: Delete all material Number 1543 CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that although he would not ordinarily propose an amendment to a legislative finding, because its language says that the legislature has received considerable testimony indicating that women have, on occasion, received abortions in the state without considering sufficient information, but he has not heard such testimony in any of the committees that he has sat on, he is reluctant to include such language because it isn't supported by the evidence with which he is familiar. CHAIR McGUIRE asked Senator Dyson whether, when creating this language, he was referring to testimony that he'd heard in the committees that he'd sat on. SENATOR DYSON said yes, adding, "I understood that ... if the attorney general is ever having to defend this, it helps to establish the case of why, why ... did the legislature take this action to try to ensure that people got the information they needed." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked whether the testimony that the findings section refers to is on record. SENATOR DYSON said yes. REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked: I ... think I misread this sentence; I guess it says considerable testimony has been received, not that this has happened on considerable occasions. So I guess I took this [paragraph] (6) to mean that we were finding that many women have had abortions without thinking about them first but, really, it doesn't say that. It just says there was a lot of testimony, and it doesn't say that this is happening a lot. Number 1660 REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew Amendment 3. Number 1700 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 4, line 19: Delete "or surgeon." Number 1709 CHAIR McGUIRE objected [for the purpose of discussion]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it is his understanding that all surgeons are physicians. CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that she knows of no surgeons that are not physicians. Number 1725 JASON HOOLEY, Staff to Senator Fred Dyson, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, noted that the language Amendment 4 proposes to delete is part of current law. CHAIR McGUIRE, after withdrawing her objection to Amendment 4, announced that Amendment 4 was adopted. Number 1784 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 5, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, lines 17-20: Amend paragraph (1) as follows (1) contains geographically indexed material designed to inform a person of public and private agencies, [AND] services, clinics and facilities that are available to assist a woman with the woman's reproductive choices; the department shall include information about at least the following types of agencies, [AND] services, clinics and facilities: Page 2, line 29: Amend paragraph (2) as follows: (2) includes a comprehensive regional directory of the agencies, services [AND] clinics, and facilities identified by the department under (1) of this subsection, a description of the services they offer, and the manner in which the agencies, services [AND] clinics, and facilities may be contacted, including telephone numbers; Number 1801 CHAIR McGUIRE objected [for the purpose of discussion]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that Amendment 5 merely conforms the language in paragraphs (1) and (2) to the language in paragraph (1)'s subparagraphs. SENATOR DYSON said he did not have a problem with Amendment 5. Number 1859 CHAIR McGUIRE withdrew her objection and asked whether there were any further objections to Amendment 5. There being none, Amendment 5 was adopted. Number 1867 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 4, line 5: Insert new paragraph (10) and renumber existing paragraph (10) as paragraph (11): (10) contains objective, unbiased, and comprehensive information that is reviewed and approved for medical accuracy and appropriateness by recognized obstetrics and gynecological specialists designated by the State Medical Board on different types of available contraceptive choices and the medical risk and possible complications commonly associated with each method as well as the possible psychological effects that have been associated with using contraceptives; REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that the language in Amendment 6 is from HCS CSSB 30(HES). SENATOR DYSON relayed that he has in his possession a slightly different amendment on the same topic - contraceptive information - that uses the phrase "including abstinence and natural family planning". He indicated that adding such a phrase to Amendment 6 would alleviate most of his objections to including a provision regarding contraceptive information. He offered his belief, though, that neither Amendment 6 nor the amendment he has contains a disclaimer about the graphic nature of such information. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that that disclaimer is already in the bill. MS. TONDINI concurred, adding that it is in a separate subsection. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would have no problem with conceptually amending Amendment 6 to add the phrase "including abstinence and natural family planning". CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that Amendment 6 also be amended to include, wherever appropriate, the department's recommendation regarding graphic and sensitive material. Number 2031 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to] conceptually amend Amendment 6 to "put the [attorney general's recommendation] ... [with] Senator [Dyson's] ... language and my thing together in one provision." There being no objection, Amendment 6 was amended. Number 2044 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to Amendment 6, as amended. There being no objection, Amendment 6, as amended, was adopted. Number 2073 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 7, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 5, lines 10-18: Amend subsection (i) as follows: (i) It is a defense to any action for medical malpractice based upon an alleged failure to obtain informed consent of a person under (h) of this section that (1) the risk not disclosed is too commonly known or is too remote to require disclosure; or (2) the person who is the subject of the alleged failure to obtain the informed consent stated to the physician or other health care provider that the patient would or would not undergo the abortion procedure regardless of the risk involved or that the person did not want to be informed of the matters to which the person would be entitled to be informed; or (3) under the circumstances, consent by or on behalf of the patient was not possible; or (4) the physician or health care provider, after considering all of the attendant facts and circumstances, used reasonable discretion as to the manner and extent that the alternatives or risks were disclosed to the patient because the health care provider reasonably believed that a full disclosure would have a substantially adverse effect on the patient's condition. Number 2089 CHAIR McGUIRE objected [for the purpose of discussion]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that Amendment 7 contains, in part, language from [AS 09.55.556 as it is proposed to be amended by] HB 472. CHAIR McGUIRE added that Amendment 7 would conform SB 30 to HB 472, which pertains to medical malpractice. REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected. He said: It would be inconsistent for me to narrow the rights of a woman who's a victim of ... malpractice because she's pregnant, when I don't believe that the rights of other victims of malpractice should be limited. ... So, right now, we're getting rid of the reasonable- patient standard for pregnant women - that's the reasonable-patient standard for informed consent. Current law is that a doctor has a duty to give a patient all of the information that they need and all of the information that a reasonable patient would want. There is an effort afoot, in the medical malpractice bill, to say that [that] shouldn't be the standard for informed consent, [rather that] the standard for informed consent should be what a reasonable doctor in the community provides for information - it's a ... smaller amount of information probably. ... Number 2201 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested bifurcating Amendment 7. He directed attention to proposed [paragraph] (3) of Amendment 7, and posited that there shouldn't be any objection to the addition of that language because it should be a defense if it is impossible to get someone's consent for some reason. SENATOR DYSON asked how it would be impossible to get consent by or on behalf of the patient. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that such could happen if a woman is in a coma and an abortion needs to be performed to save her life. SENATOR DYSON pointed out, however, that language on page 6 [of the bill], lines 27-28, says that informed consent is not required in cases of medical emergency; he suggested, therefore, that proposed paragraph (3) of Amendment 7 is not necessary. CHAIR McGUIRE agreed. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG argued that the aforementioned hypothetical situation might not constitute an emergency and, thus, would not be covered under the language on page 6, lines 27-28. SENATOR DYSON opined, though, that if it is not an emergency, then there will be time to obtain consent from the person designated or appointed to act on the woman's behalf. TAPE 04-51, SIDE B Number 2364 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said: The context this will arise [in] is in a medical malpractice case, and I don't want to see the [doctor] sued in this situation when they're reasonably trying to give the information that's necessary. This is trying to allow a reasonable physician to practice reasonably ... without fear of some lawsuit coming out of left field, ... and it's doing the same thing we did in the general malpractice bill .... SENATOR DYSON said he did not feel a need to include proposed paragraph (3). With regard to proposed paragraph (4) of Amendment 7, he said that it comes across as insulting to women to say that full disclosure will have an adverse effect on their condition. He said he could envision a scenario wherein a doctor decides to perform an abortion on a woman having surgery without getting informed consent because of the possibility that informing her about the pregnancy/abortion will have an adverse effect on her condition. He opined that women are tough enough to handle the information that they are pregnant and what would be involved in an abortion, and that they would want that information. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS remarked that he wouldn't want to have doctors exposed to potential lawsuits regarding this issue. He, too, suggested bifurcating Amendment 7. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he cannot understand why they would want to give a pregnant woman fewer rights than any other patient. People have a right to fair information and a fair level of competence from their physicians, and he did not feel like compromising those rights, he remarked, adding, "I've never heard of any sort of explosion of frivolous lawsuits in the area abortions, and don't know why we have to limit people's rights just to prevent frivolous lawsuits ... that don't exist." He mentioned that he agrees with Senator Dyson regarding Amendment 7. SENATOR DYSON asked whether the provisions contained in HB 472 would cover abortions if it is adopted into law. He questioned whether, if such is the case, Amendment 7 is even necessary. CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that in statutes, a general provision applies unless there is a specific provision. Number 2011 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that since SB 30 already contains paragraphs (1) and (2) of Amendment 7 - which contains, in part, language from [AS 09.55.556 as it is proposed to be amended by] HB 472 - it would be congruent to also add paragraphs (3) and (4). Not including paragraphs (3) and (4) in SB 30 would provide less immunity for abortion procedures than for all other procedures, he added. Conversely, he queried, if that immunity should not apply to abortion procedures, why, then, should it apply to all other procedures. SENATOR DYSON said he still has a strong objection to including proposed paragraphs (3) and (4) in SB 30, and reiterated his arguments for leaving them out. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what kind of circumstances proposed paragraph (4) would apply in. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he didn't know of any specific circumstances; rather, he was just thinking that if the language is in HB 472, then it ought to also be in SB 30. He surmised that all of Senator Dyson's arguments against including this language in SB 30 are also applicable to HB 472. Number 1917 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to amend Amendment 7, to eliminate paragraph (3). REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he just wants HB 472 and SB 30 to be consistent. CHAIR McGUIRE opined that abortion is different than other procedures, and said she could envision someone using paragraph (3) to get around having to obtain informed consent. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would not object to the amendment to Amendment 7, but noted that his concern is simply that the two bills be consistent. Number 1853 CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that there were no objections, announced that Amendment 7 was amended. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he objected to the adoption of Amendment 7, as amended, for the reasons he stated earlier. REPRESENTATIVE OGG offered his understanding that the bill that passes last takes precedence: if HB 472 passes first, SB 30 will provide an exception to it and visa versa. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he disagrees. He elaborated: This covers the defenses for medical malpractice based upon an alleged failure to obtain informed consent of a person under subsection (h), and the specific controls over the general where they're inconsistent, and so if there's any inconsistency, this would apply. And I think it is inconsistent now in at least the sense that a defense in [HB 472] ... that would be, quote, "under the circumstances, consent [by or on] behalf of the patient was not possible", unquote, would not be an allowable defense in this kind of malpractice (indisc.). Number 1757 CHAIR McGUIRE asked Representative Gruenberg whether he would accept a second amendment to Amendment 7, as amended, to put a period after "patient" in proposed paragraph (4). REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would accept that change. Number 1719 REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he objects to such a change. He elaborated: I can't imagine a circumstance where a woman who doesn't want to have an abortion should have her will overruled. If a woman doesn't want to have an abortion, that ... decision should be respected. And if we are implying here that a physician might know better than the woman and decide, 'under the facts and circumstances", to withhold information because the physician thinks it's better for the woman to have an abortion, I think that's ... not good policy. ... We have a right in this state ... under current law that says a physician has the duty to disclose all known risks and all known dangers and all known reasonable alternatives to a patient. I think that's fair; that's ... a right that patients should have, and I'm going to object [to] the changes in that law in [HB 472] ... vociferously on the House floor. But the implication here that a doctor should, because they believe it's reasonable, be able to lull somebody into having an abortion when they don't want to have an abortion I think is dangerous." CHAIR McGUIRE offered her belief that such is not Representative Gruenberg's intent or the intent of Amendment 7, as amended. She opined that the language in Amendment 7, as amended, is meant to allow for a reasonable-physician standard, so that there will not be a proliferation of lawsuits. It is not meant to provide a method by which a doctor can bypass a patient's will. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that he offered Amendment 7 with the goal of making the two bills congruent. Now, however, Amendment 7 has been amended and a further amendment to it has been suggested, and so it substantially increases the discretion [of the physician] and the scope of the defense. Number 1512 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 7, as amended. The committee took an at-ease from 2:20 p.m. to 2:21 p.m. Number 1493 REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 8, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 1, lines 1-2: Delete "and other persons" Page 3, section 6 and Page 4, sections 3 and 4: Delete "unborn child" wherever it appears and replace with "fetus" Number 1474 CHAIR McGUIRE objected [for the purpose of discussion]. REPRESENTATIVE GARA, referring to the second portion of Amendment 8, noted that the bill currently uses the term "unborn child" in places where historically the term "fetus" has been used. He said he does not want to decrease the chances that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion will be upheld by future courts, and suggested that not using the term "fetus" increases the chances that a woman will lose her right to choose. He said he would prefer that the bill use the term "fetus" because it is the medical term and has been used historically. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to cosponsor Amendment 8. SENATOR DYSON, referring to the first portion of Amendment 8, explained that he'd included the phrase "and other persons" in the title because he's anticipating that parental consent language will survive constitutional challenge, and that "and other persons" refers to parents and guardians. Number 1304 REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to amend Amendment 8, to delete the first portion of Amendment 8. Number 1290 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected and then removed his objection. Number 1287 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that Amendment 8 has been amended. SENATOR DYSON opined that Amendment 8, as amended, gets right to the heart of the whole debate. He elaborated: Fetus is just Latin for unborn child. You can put the whole bill in Latin if you want. ... What I really worry about here, and it gets back to the heart of the argument, is an attempt to justify the fact that in this country, some people do not have protections, and that is: if you're an unborn child, you're not worthy of ... protection under the law. And if ... that's your goal, then you really do want to, everywhere you can, substitute a synonym, in whatever language, for a human being. And that has been ... the classic pattern of oppressors down through 6,000 years of recorded history .... [If] there's a group that you don't want to have rights, then you come up for another term for them. And I'm very wary of ... continuing that pattern. ... The U.S. Congress has just passed the unborn child protection Act recognizing at least, if the child happens to be wanted, [that in] doing damage to that child, something, in fact and in law, of value was lost. ... [Amendment 8, as amended] is not going to change the content of the bill; it changes the flavor. And for those of you that want to preserve, quote, "the right to choose" - and I think the more proper (indisc.) is, "the right to solve the unwanted pregnancy by terminating the life of a developing child" - ... and if you want to obscure the fact that we're dealing with a human life, then obscuring language, even if it happens to be that it [is] sometimes used in medical circles, but I can tell you when a doctor's ... dealing with a woman [regarding] prenatal care, they don't ever talk about the fetus, they're talking about a baby -- and so I object .... Number 1068 REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he did not introduce Amendment 8, as amended, to denigrate the value of a woman or a woman who's carrying a child. He elaborated: I've introduced [Amendment 8, as amended] because the first thing that those lawyers on the pro-life side of the issue are going to do if this bill passes as written is say, "Look, the state of Alaska recognizes that a pregnant woman is carrying a child even before the child is born, at day one, at day two, at month one, at month two, at month three, at month four." They're going to make that argument and they're going to say to the courts that the state of Alaska has now elevated the protection it wants to give to unborn children, it has now lowered the interest that a woman has, in having an abortion. And it will argue that the calculus the court has to enter into in deciding whether a woman still has a right to abortion has changed, because in order to take away a fundamental right, the court has to consider what the state's interests are. And I think by changing the language we are now creating an argument for the pro-life side of the battle, that we have elevated the interest in not having abortions in this state. So I am not particularly offended, in the parlance. I've ... patted pregnant friends of mine and talked about the baby inside the pregnant friend of mine; I consider it a baby at that point, personally, in parlance. I just know that this language is going to be used in legal battles to try and undermine a woman's right to have an abortion, and I don't want to undermine that right. We are so philosophically opposed on this one, we'll never agree, and so, if I have a ... motive ..., it's that I want to protect a woman's right to choose and I don't want to give away an argument in court in the future. And frankly, that's why the lawyers on both sides and the lobbyists on both sides of these issues fight over these words all the time. And so in a conversation I'll have no problem using either term, but in court it's a different [story]. Number 0979 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara and Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 8, as amended. Representatives Ogg, Samuels, Holm, Anderson, and McGuire voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 8, as amended, failed by a vote of 2-5. Number 0945 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report the proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for SB 30, Version 23-LS0193\O, Mischel, 3/22/04, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations, the accompanying fiscal notes, and the legal analysis by the attorney general dated March 30, 2004. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 30(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. Number 0908 CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to [adopt and] report a House Concurrent Resolution, for the purpose of making conforming changes to the title of SB 30, out of committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, a House Concurrent Resolution [which later became HCR 36] was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. [HCS CSSB 30(JUD) was reported from committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|