Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/27/1998 08:04 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 5 - CONSTIT AMNDMNT: FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE Number 0014 CHAIR JAMES announced the first item would be HJR 5, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to freedom of conscience," sponsored by Representative Terry Martin. Number 0045 LIZ DODD, Acting President, Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), came before the committee to testify on HJR 5. She stated the Alaska Civil Liberties Union opposes HJR 5. She said the problem her organization sees with the resolution is that it is general and far reaching in that it really could eviscerate our state constitution by providing a blanket exemption to anyone who could assert reason of conscience for not obeying a state law. Ms. Dodd indicated she isn't sure how conscience is defined in the proposed constitutional amendment. If it is religion, it should say "religion." She said something could be crafted along the lines of the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was passed by Congress a couple of years ago. Subsequently, the Act was overturned by the United States Supreme Court saying that it granted over broad special protections to religious individuals. Ms. Dodd said the ACLU supported the congressional legislation. As she understands, there had been some efforts to put religious protections in place in some states. Number 0232 MS. DODD explained it is not clear to her what the actual intent of the constitutional amendment is. She said, "For instance, I was just looking through the constitution thinking well what could be affected by this. The big one that jumped out at me was Article VIII, where the state has delegated authority to regulate fish and game. If I were to assert a religious belief that I could take certain species at certain places during seasons that the state hadn't said -- state regulators had prohibited, could I then practice that? I mean it seems to me pretty readily arguable that there is some very ancient beliefs that go to hunting and fishing outside of state regulated season's limits." MS. DODD referred to traditional uses of controlled substances for religious rituals and questioned whether the amendment says that if there are peyote users in Alaska, they can assert a right of conscience to use those controlled substances, or marijuana users who can asset a religious belief in the use of marijuana as has been asserted elsewhere in the country. She questioned if that was the intent of the HJR 5 and said she fears that is what it will do. Number 0505 MS. DODD pointed out that polygamy has come up in other states. Some people hold a religious belief that you shouldn't have to get a marriage license and be married to one person. Ms. Dodd said everything she has mentioned are invocations of the right of conscience which could easily be applied. MS. DODD referred to the Valley Hospital case that compelled the Valley Hospital, since it received public funding, to provide abortion services. The board had voted to no longer make those services available. The Alaska Supreme Court said, "No, if you receive public funding, you have to respect this fundamental right of Alaskan women." Ms. Dodd said, "There is nothing in that decision that requires a doctor or any other medical personnel to participate to perform this procedure or participate in it. In fact, the judgement that was upheld by the court in that case stated specifically -- and I'm reading from that judgement, 'Nothing in the permanent injunction, granted as part of this final judgement shall require any member of the medical staff of Valley Hospital or any other officer, agent, servant or employee of Valley Hospital to participate directly in the performance of any abortion procedure if that person, for reasons of conscience or belief, objects to doing so.'" Ms. Dodd said she hopes that the bill doesn't move. It will create some real problems for the Alaska Constitution and state laws in general. Number 0730 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON said, "If indeed the members of the staff at Valley Hospital are free to not participate in procedures that they have objection to, and yet as I understand it the hospital is required to provide. So then as I understand it, the hospital is in the situation of being required, by law, to provide a service that the present staff are unwilling to do. Is it then your position that they would be compelled to go out and find and hire somebody else who would provide the abortion services and keep the present staff without firing them." Number 0822 MS. DODD said she believed the problem with the Valley Hospital case is that the hospital board passed a policy which explicitly stated that abortions would not be provided there. She indicated she is not a lawyer, but has a broad understanding of this case and was hesitant to answer that question. Ms. Dodd said, "As I understand that language that I just read, if I'm a nurse at Valley Hospital and there is an abortion that's going to be performed, I can say I don't want to participate in this procedure. Now what happens if the nurse says that, the lab tech says that, the doctor says that. Well then Valley Hospital is faced with the situation where a woman has asked for a procedure which the hospital is required to provide and they're not being able to provide it. Are they then required to get a doctor in there who can provide that procedure? That's a difficult question I'm not sure I have the answer for, but I know that any of those individuals can abstain and then it's back to an administrator's problem. It seems to be kind of going to that individual. There's really not a problem there now." Number 0939 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said it was his understanding that history of the freedom on conscience in our country is that it has largely been, by law, forced to be tied to religious perspective, probably so that everybody can't say that their -- whatever it is that their conscience - they say their conscience is compelling them to do or not do is of their own interpretation. Number 1009 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he noticed that Representative Martin's constitutional amendment does not tie the freedom of conscience to religious perspective and recognizes, probably rightly, that a person can have a conscience without a religion. He asked if it is the ACLU's position that having a conscience without a religion is unacceptable. Number 1033 MS. DODD said, "If you look at where you've had conscientious objection before in the laws and, again, kind of just what I know about -- if you think about like conscription military service conscientious objection. That was a statutory exemption that was tailored with specific requirements. As I said earlier, we would look at that. We would look at a statutory proposal coming out of this legislature that stated, 'Particular religious exemptions for under particular circumstances for a particular acts.' That is something we would look at because there is a constitution -- under our state and the federal constitution, there is protection for religion. And if you have a religious belief, and you're going to be asked to do a specific act and you have a legitimate religious objection to that act, like the thing under the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) was land marking. Should churches get treated differently under the zoning acts than does a mobile home in a trailer park? And we supported the position that said yes, churches do get treated differently. They should be treated -- when those laws are enforced, churches enjoy special exemptions. The supreme court didn't agree with that. So it has to be narrow, it has to be specific, it has to delineate what acts you can -- otherwise anybody can have a conscience -- a conscience is a fluid concept, anybody can just say I don't believe in that." Number 1158 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said the answer to his question was yes, that the ACLU does not want people to be able to -- conscience - conscientious position without a religion. Number 1211 MS. DODD said that wasn't what she said. She stated "What I said was that, well, that there could also be a conscience objection that you could substantiate in other ways. If I could show that I've been a vegetarian for 30 years and there is some requirement somewhere that I do something that violates that. And I say, 'That's not really a religion thing, I'm just an old pacifist. You know I don't like to kill anything. I have a deity involved.' You know those kinds of beliefs have been -- I think there -- I hate to adventure this too because again I have not litigated cases. I could definitely ask our staff to look and see if there is a case where there were conscientious objectors during the Vietnam War who were not religious people, but were pacifists with purely secular reasons. So, I will not sit here and say the ACLU doesn't support freedom of conscience outside of the context of religious beliefs because there could be instances -- just one more reason why you have to very specific about what you are talking about with something like this." Number 1323 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said most law restrains conduct as opposed to compelling conduct. He said it seems to him that Representative Martin's bill says nothing about people being free to use their conscience as an excuse to disobey the restraint of law. Representative Dyson said to him, what it seems to say is that they would be free to not be compelled to act proactively if they have a conscience objection. He asked Ms. Dodd if that is also her understanding. And secondly, are there words that can be added to make it more clear that this law is directed towards not being compelled to act proactively against her conscience. Number 1423 MS. DODD asked if something could be added to this proposed constitutional amendment to make it more clear. She said she doesn't believe so. She said the ACLU objects to this venue of trying to put this into the constitution. She said when you craft a statute, it has very specific things in it that narrow it and make it understandable by courts and individuals. She said, "When you put a blanket provision in the constitution like this, you're really -- I mean - well, I guess you kind of just leave it to the courts to interpret what it means." She said she can't answer Representative Dyson's question as she doesn't know what the bill means. She said she doesn't know if it restrains as well as imposes a duty upon someone. It said it could be construed to do both. It's just the wrong way to do it. Number 1522 CHAIR JAMES said she has watched the ACLU for a long time and they never cease to amaze her where they come down on issues. She said sometimes she agrees with them and sometimes she doesn't. Chair James said she has a conscience and she has violated her conscience before and suffered greatly for it. Alaska also has young people who have a conscience. An interesting thing about your conscience is if you violate it once, it's not nearly as difficult the next time. It's called conditioning. She stated that we have a whole society that does those kinds of things. She referred to her own conscience and said part of it is religious and part of it is based on law. Chair James said because she can understand what her conscience is, it's difficult for her to believe anybody doesn't know what a conscience is. She said what a conscience is and what drives it may be different. Number 1627 CHAIR JAMES said, "Because I can understand what my conscience is, it's difficult for me, knowing what my conscience is, and thinking about this in a long-term, that other people don't understand what the definition of conscience is. To me, it is just a thing we have within us and the dictate maybe comes from lots of different things - not always religious, sometimes religious, but something that you just wouldn't feel comfortable with if you did that. It is interesting when I was watching the Pope over in Cuba and one of the things he had asked for is for the turning loose of a lot of prisoners over there who are prisoners of conscience. And having people prisoners of conscience is a very common thing in a place where we don't have the democracy and the freedom that we have in this country. So it all plays into my understanding - and I understand all your concerns, and so forth, but there are ways of determining whether a person is using what they say is a conscience not for a conscience but for some other reason. Quite frankly, I'm supportive of this piece of legislation because I think that destroying your conscience is one of the most destructive things to your psyche that there is. The feeling guilty - I've violated my conscience a number of times and the guilt that I feel is very devastating. I really believe that the conscience is the one thing that we have that guides us through our life, whether it is religious-based or whether it is based on what we were trained or whether it is based on the law of your country or all those different kinds of ideas to get. So you don't need to respond to me. I just wanted to let you know how I felt about that issue." Number 1839 MS. DODD said, "I really agree with a lot of what you said and I can see why this would be a little confusing as an ACLU position. Really what drives our position in this case is our devotion to the Alaska Constitution. We happen to think this is a great state constitution. We'll always oppose any insert - amendment to it - that is going to weaken it overall and we think this will. I too have a conscience and I suspect that your and my conscience really doesn't compel us to do things often that are outside of the laws. I'm not a polygamist and I suspect I would have heard about it if you were. However, how do we differentiate? What is your conscientious belief and what is mine? That is the danger here. A polygamist can assert that you have a conscience that says don't kill. A polygamist can have a conscience that says don't get a marriage license. Under this broad language, those are equal rights and that's the danger here." Number 1955 CHAIR JAMES indicated there were no further witnesses to testify. Number 2020 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN made a motion to move HJR 5 out of committee with individual recommendations and with the attached fiscal note. Number 2033 CHAIR JAMES noted HJR 5 has a further referral to the House Judiciary Standing Committee where these issues will be further discussed. Number 2043 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON objected to the motion. He said, "I think that it's interesting after the testimony we just heard, and testimony that we received in a previous hearing, from somebody that oddly enough who supports the bill that talks about the massive amount of gray areas. And I think we've touched upon those today and we've touched upon those previously. And I guess I'm objecting to moving this bill forward until we can review some of those gray areas. I mean it just seems to me that if this committee passes out this bill with this many questions out in front of us that what we're doing is we're essentially endorsing the constitutional amendment that, in the end, may prove to be nothing more than a vast playground for litigant's lawyers. I think we need to get to the bottom of some of these questions before we move it out. I don't think it's right to move the bill forward to another committee and them answer those questions." Number 2149 CHAIR JAMES reiterated that the Judiciary Committee is the next committee of referral which is the absolute positive place where those issues ought to be discussed. She said, "I think the State Affairs Committee is looking at what is in the best interest of the state or how it effects the state, as a whole, if the provisions of the implementation of the freedom of conscience would probably be put into statute as to determine as to whether a person is claiming a conscience without a conscience, which is the only problem that I see is that if they're claiming a conscience for something they don't want to do, and really they have no basis for a conscientious decision on that, would be the only place that we would have a problem. Quite frankly, my understanding of people with a conscience out there in my lifetime - I have not seen any place or any situation that I wouldn't have been comfortable letting a person have their freedom of their conscience. We have freedoms in our U.S. Constitution such as the freedom of the press, we have a freedom of religion, we have the freedom of speech, we have all those freedoms which are modified in the state's best interest. And so it's not a right that can't be infringed. Even our right to keep and bear arms - we don't have that - we can qualify for those things. So the fear that people have over what it seems to be a new approach is, as far as I'm concerned, at the basis of a free country that we have the freedom to believe like we believe in this country. If it is not in the state's best interest, our U.S. Supreme Court has found many cases that the presentation before them says it doesn't apply here. And I am perfectly comfortable, even though I do have a little bit of distress with court decisions that lower courts sent up to yield myself to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear such cases that might come before them. So I think that the freedom of conscience is the one thing that separates this country with other forms of government and any other kind of indoctrination that makes people behave like they do. I appreciate your ability to disagree on this issue, but I sincerely would hope that I would have the cooperation with the committee to move it to Judiciary where any legal issues could be thoroughly investigated before it is moved from there." Number 2438 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ indicated his past experience leads him to a different conclusion. This is suppose to be a nation of laws, and a bill like this is a recipe for anarchy. He said, "As seen in the courts, people will come in with what you might consider to be absurd expressions of conscience that based on their sincere beliefs, they didn't have to follow any of the laws of the state, be they traffic laws, be they laws regarding physical assault and with this broad language, they would have valid advantage. And I think that's the wrong step to take. I think it adds injury to our ability to carry on in a civil society. It opens the opportunity for people to do things as extreme as blowing up oil rigs because their conscience doesn't allow them to take the fruits of the earth; to beat their wives because they feel that that's their prerogative. And without investigating those consequences, I think we're moving precipitously. Number 2556 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he would be interested in seeing if there is any modifying language that could make the bill more clear. To him, the bill seems to be talking about being free from the law, compelling a person to action as opposed to restraining action. He said the analogous situation is in the battle that was slavery. It appeared as if our country was not going to be able to quickly get rid of this so called "golden institution." What precipitated a massive revolt in the North was the Runaway Slave Act. He believed the first one was in the 1820s and it was modified in either 1853 or 1857. Finally, what was so outrageous to folks in the North was their law enforcement people and courts were forced to participate in returning runaway slaves to their masters in the South. He said before that time, they had been at least partially insulated in that if they didn't believe in slavery, they didn't have to participate. To be compelled to participate, with their tax money or their communities institutions was an outrage. Number 2750 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he believes that what Representative Martin is after is for folks not to be compelled to participate in that which they consider to be an outrage. He said,"I think you're right, I think this will cause some litigation and I think there will be some tests of it. I would welcome suggestions on how it could be more carefully crafted to allow people to escape from being forced, by law, to participate in activities they consider to be a moral outrage. But I think that the dangers we may encounter in going forward are insignificant compared to the value of people being free to not be forced to participate in morally outrageous activity. And I would welcome your help in the future as this bill goes on forward." Number 2845 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he believes the distinction that he has with Representative Dyson is that he believes the constitution already protects the right of people to stand up and say, "No." That is enshrined in our right of privacy. He said this amendment allows individuals to stand up and disregard the will of everyone else. That is a fine stance to take in most instances. Representative Berkowitz said he thinks that people who are willing to be civilly disobedient should be applauded for their courage, but there has to be a balance between civil disobedience and the rule of law. Without the rule of law, the freedoms of everyone else in society are impacted. Everyone else suffers a diminution of their freedom. That's the consequence of HJR 5. Number 2947 CHAIR JAMES said, "It's interesting you bring up the freedom of privacy. It doesn't say anymore than that in the constitution. A freedom of privacy, yet we know what that is and it can be infringed upon when in the best state's interest, we lose our privacy every single day. There are things that we have -- we give up our privacy. So, to say that the freedom of conscience can't be described to me is -- I don't understand that because even as I mentioned the other freedoms that we have, they're not a freedom, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded room when there isn't a fire without having -- you don't have that freedom of speech. There are lots of times that our freedoms, when they are not in the best state's interest, are infringed. The freedom of conscience misused would be infringed by our courts of law. It is -- to say that you have a freedom of conscience is no different than having a freedom of religion, or freedom of the press, or the freedom of speech, or the right to keep and bear arms. The rest of the law, it establishes a goal that we have and so you know even though -- I'm hoping that the argument on this, and we can stop this argument if I don't have enough votes to take bill out of committee today we can withdraw the vote. And I do happen to have four people on teleconference that wanted to testify that I missed so we can do that. But I'm hoping that the argument, in opposition to this piece of legislation, is not based on anything political because it has tendency to go down a political path. Particularly since the issue of the abortion in the Valley Clinic is an example of the freedom of conscience. How that would be -- if we had this constitutional amendment, would that decision have been made any differently? Probably not. The issue was, in the Valley Hospital -- that because they took public funds, they had to do what the public allowed to have happen. Now they can have a freedom of conscience probably, under our existing law, by refusing to take public funds and then they wouldn't be under that thumb. And already the situation was that the individuals didn't have to do that. What it doesn't go far enough to say is, 'Then what does the hospital do now that it has to provide service and now no one wants to do it?' So I think it's a mistake to compare this freedom of conscience -- constitutional amendment to have anything to do with abortion or anything to do with any other political issue. This has to do with you being able to live under what your conscience says you ought to live under. And also one of the things I think we've had a problem over all of these years and you know it's interesting, I keep, you know, getting older is kind of fun in a lot of ways because I can remember what happened a long time ago when things were different, when conscience really meant something. It doesn't mean anything anymore. It's time to bring it back, I think, and put it on the table and say, 'We have one.' If we don't have one, we better get one. And then once we get it we better base it on something that is real and we better stick to it. I think this is an appropriate time to bring this forward." Number 3336 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the latitude that you've given us because I think this is important discussion that we've had and I just - in the context of this discussion I just want to make three points. One is I think for everybody at this table - most people in this room - I mean I think we all do have a conscience. It may differ in some respects and I think conscience is important now as it has ever been, especially in a much more complicated world. The value of a good conscience, however you may describe that, is extremely important. So I don't think that anybody who may oppose this constitutional amendment isn't opposed to conscience." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "And the second point is I think the discussion on the right to privacy that's enshrined in our constitution - I'm kind of glad it was brought up because it shows, I think, the unintended consequences of language -- that's not well defined in the constitution. And one of those unintended consequences of broad language - a good example of the right to privacy. I don't think that anybody at this table anticipated the right to privacy would be found by the courts to ensure personal possession of marijuana, but in fact that's exactly what did happen with a court decision in this state maybe 15 years ago. I can't remember when the Raven decision was issued. So I think that is a good example of what broad language can accomplish when it is enshrined in the constitution. There are unintended consequences that sometimes pop up that we can't anticipate." Number 3513 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "Finally, I think the thing that bothers me the most -- I mean we can talk about all the big issues, whether it's - does somebody have the constitutional right of conscience to go out and shoot a moose for subsistence purposes. I mean those are kind of big issues and we tend to like to use those issues simply because they're in the news now and (indisc.) great debate. But it comes back to me to a lot of the smaller issues and I want to give an example of a small issue that is very important to me. My wife and I have discussed life support systems. I have made a decision that I don't want to be kept alive beyond what I would consider my normal life course. I don't want to end up going into a hospital, be put on a life support system and have a doctor's freedom of conscience abutting against my freedom of conscience so that my wife has to go to court, in a very distressful situation, to protect my right of conscience. So we can talk about this, we can put it in a big arena, but really what it comes down to it we're starting something here that none of us can really define how it's going to be used. None of us can really say what a judge in a black robe is going to decide for us. It's kind of unfortunate because I don't think anybody here would argue against the application of conscience in our lives. And so my opposition to this isn't because I don't think we should apply our individual consciences in the way we live. My argument is that we can't tell what the consequences of this kind of a constitutional amendment will be." Number 3700 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Elton if he is saying that he wishes the right to privacy would have been better defined so that situation wouldn't have occurred. She said she is real happy with the right freedom of privacy or the right to privacy. She said she understands why the court made that decision. Chair James said we have freedom in this country and our freedom extends to where it doesn't bump into someone else's - that's the given. The court recognizes that you only have freedom until it interferes negatively with other people's lives. She said she doesn't have a problem with those blank statements. Number 3749 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said in answer to Chair James' question, he is not about the right to privacy. He said he is just using that as an example of what some of the unintended consequences can be. Number 3758 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said, "As the state constitution has been referred to, we have a broad different constituency in this great state and the size of the state. And some of the comments made of polygamy or allowing that -- some of the ways of life that the constituency has out there is different and has as been different. And as far as the constitution is concerned, I have no fear of trying to improve. It is so hard to change it when the political process and the process we use to get from this point to the amending or changing of the constitution. But we do have, like I said, different constituents that live a different way of life that I believe did not understand or had an opportunity to craft this constitution that we all abide by. And I just wanted to bring those points out and the difference of the people that are being governed out there and the values and the philosophy of life that the government has within them. Sometimes their frustration in efforts to improve their way of life -- and I've heard of the word 'subsistence' being alluded to in this case -- in this discussion. Thank you." Number 3945 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said Chair James brought up the contest of the right to privacy and how everyone is supportive of it. Yet, what inspired Representative Martin to bring this bill forward again revolves around the privacy issue. He said, "I know that you and Representative Dyson have a different view of the right to privacy as it relates to reproductive choice then Representative Elton and I do. That's the difference. Those kind of differences are enshrined in the constitution and I'd suggest with the law of unintended consequences you're going to see even more divisive problems with the freedom of conscience bill as it sits here." Number 4053 CHAIR JAMES said her position on abortion has nothing to do with the right to privacy. She said her position on abortion is that she believes that life begins at conception. Therefore, she can't take any other position except to support life. She said she assumes that those people who support abortion do not believe that life begins at conception. So that's a difference, it has nothing to do with the right to privacy. Number 4121 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he is not denigrating her position at all, but the courts have found the right to choice through the right to privacy. Number 4132 CHAIR JAMES said she understands that, but that's not her reason at all for that issue. Number 4139 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "And though you control what happens here in this room, the courts control what happens outside." Number 4155 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN withdrew his motion to move HJR 5 from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. Number 4159 CHAIR JAMES asked if there was an objection. There being no objection, Representative Ivan's motion was withdrawn. Number 4212 STEVE WILLIAMS, Attorney, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He indicated he is the attorney for the pro-choice plaintiffs in the Valley Hospital case, but wasn't testifying to talk about the interesting broader issues of conscience even though he thinks there is a strong case that this could be called the freedom of anarchy bill. He said he appreciates Chair James' comments that, in a sense, conscience is always balanced against the rights of others. He said he wants to make it clear to the committee and to Representative Martin that the Valley Hospital case is precisely about freedom of conscience. Mr. Williams said even though there seems to be some confusion, although from some of the comments he heard it has been somewhat cleared up. The simple fact is that the court decision in that case expressly respected the rights of conscience of those who oppose abortion, in any particular case, because we have to recognize that people have a broad range of views on abortion. Some people don't even believe that abortion is proper where a woman's life is in danger, because of her pregnancy, because they believe that only God can make the decision as to who should live. Others have a whole range of views up to a relatively a permissive use concerning abortion. Mr. Williams explained some people, for instance, don't believe rape or incest is an adequate reason to prevent an abortion. He noted Pat Buchanan disagreed with that position. He said his point is that there is a wide range of views that people have on the issue as we all know. Number 4412 MR. WILLIAMS pointed out that the important thing to know about the Valley Hospital decision is that the injunction was entered in that case as nothing in this injunction shall require any member of the medical staff of Valley Hospital, or any officer, agent, servant or employee of Valley Hospital to participate in the performance of any abortion procedure if that person, for reasons of conscience or belief, objects to doing so. He said the supreme court excerpted that language in its decision affirming just that in the injunction. Number 4445 MR WILLIAMS said the important point is to recognize that both the superior court and the supreme court, in the Valley Hospital case, respected and protected individual rights of belief in conscience. He said, "The right of a woman to make the difficult, often painful choice whether to have a lawful abortion and the right of a hospital employee to choose, based on his or her conscience or beliefs, not to participate in an abortion procedure -- and that's the important thing. I think it fits very clearly, and I actually think I heard Chair James acknowledge that, it fits very clearly within the notion that rights of conscience have to be structured in such a way which respects other people's rights of conscience and belief." Number 4545 MR. WILLIAMS said he believes what is at stake here is tolerance. He said the people in the Valley Hospital community who disagreed with abortion were required to tolerate the fact that some people disagree with them about abortion, including some women who may choose to have abortions and some physicians or other medical staff who may choose to provide the medical services related to those abortions. Number 4508 MR. WILLIAMS referred to the slavery analogy and said when he was growing up there was quite a battle in the South over desegregation of schools. People were forced to accept the fact that black kids were going to go to school with their children even though they strongly opposed mingling of the races. In many cases, it was for religious reasons. He pointed out that many of the leaders in the segregation movement were ministers. He said we all remember the most prominent symbol of the Ku Klux Klan, burning crosses on yards and at churches. He said his only point is that the Valley Hospital case did not violate anyone's right of conscience. All it did was require them to tolerate the fact that other people might have differing views of conscience or religious beliefs. TAPE 98-6, SIDE B Number 0039 PAULINE UTTER testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She asked why Representative Martin feels that this bill is necessary in light of the Valley Hospital case. She then read Mary Osbeck's testimony. [NOTE: Due to a recording malfunction, Mary Osbeck's testimony was indiscernible.] Number 0227 ROBIN SMITH testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Ms. Smith said she is sorry she missed the first portion of the meeting because she would have liked to have gotten a better sense as to why the bill was put forth. She said she isn't clear as to what exactly the consequences are of the bill. Ms. Smith questioned why the bill is needed and what the bill would actually do. She said she would like to hear about a specific case where the bill would accomplish something. Ms. Smith said people have mentioned taxes and abortion. She stated she can understand why they might not want their taxes to go to abortion, but she can also understand why people might not want to participate in the death penalty. That is a law that several people want to also have in this state. Ms. Smith informed the committee that she personally doesn't have children and has never had an abortion, but she is compelled by state law to participate, with her taxes, in supporting people who have children in schools and (indisc.) Medicaid Program. Ms. Smith said she actually thinks it is a crime when people have more than two children because it's unfair to our (indisc.) on earth and the environment. She said she believes people are being irresponsible when they bring more children onto this earth than just themselves and yet she is compelled to participate. Ms. Smith said we're always talking about the government adding yet an additional layer of bureaucracy. Ms. Smith said she would have to speak against HJR 5. CHAIR JAMES closed the public hearing on HJR 5 and said the bill would be held over until the next House State Affairs Committee calendar.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|