Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/01/2013 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB49 | |
| SB47 | |
| SB86 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 86 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 49 | ||
SENATE BILL NO. 49
"An Act defining 'medically necessary abortion' for
purposes of making payments under the state Medicaid
program."
9:10:30 AM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, regretted that he had been unable to
sit in on the previous public testimony. He offered that he
had instructed his staff to write up the six main points
generated from public testimony in the Senate Judiciary
Committee. He said that SB 49 would attempt to define the
term "medically necessary" for the purpose of Medicaid
payments for abortions. He cited his six main points:
Rebuttal to Planned Parenthood and Testimony from
Saturday, March 30, 2013
1. The testimony was broad and, at times, emotional.
That is generally a common trait when debating issues
involving abortion.
2. Sen. Coghill wants to correct some
misunderstandings about the bill including some
misunderstandings that come from its opponents.
POINT 1 - PLANNED PARENTHOOD STILL COULD NOT CEARLY
DEFINE WHAT AN ELECTIVE ABORTION WAS OR THAT ELECTIVE
ABORTIONS EVEN EXIST.
a. Of course, a reasonable person could argue
that Planned Parenthood cannot openly clearly
admit that elective abortions exist because that
would make them elective procedures.
i. As we are all aware elective
procedures are not covered under Medicaid.
ii. Paying for elective procedures would
therefore be an open abuse of Medicaid.
POINT 2 - SB 49 DOES SATISFY EQUAL PROTECTION.
1. The 2001 Supreme Court Opinion stated that
the State has to provide medically necessary care
for women seeking to give birth to a child.
2. The court also stated that the State has to
provide medically necessary care for women
seeking an abortion.
a. What some opponents, even to this day,
fail to recognize is the Supreme Court
directed that a definition for a medically
necessary abortion can be crafted as long as
we base it on neutral criteria directly
related to the health care program. See tab
4c, Page 16 highlighted portion. That is
what SB 49 does. It was based on the very
language of the 2001 Planned Parenthood
decision and includes direct language found
in the federal Hyde Amendment. The
conditions are neutral and taken
specifically from doctors in the field.
i. One doctor disagreed with the
conditions on Saturday. What she may
or may not know is that the conditions
were overwhelmingly directly taken from
the 2001 Planned Parenthood decision.
POINT 3 - SB 49 UNFAIRLY TARGETS POOR WOMEN?
1. The US Supreme Court, long ago ruled that
the Federal Constitution does not require a State
to pay for the costs of elective abortions just
because it pays for the costs of childbirth
related medical care. See Maher v. Roe, 432 US
464, 474 (1977)
2. Additionally, the United States Supreme
Court, in 1980, ruled that the Hyde Amendment
(which is the foundation for SB 49) does not
violate women with lower incomes right to obtain
a medically necessary abortion. The case was
Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980). The State
has no obligation to remove obstacles that it did
not create (namely the woman's status of being of
little means).
POINT 4 - OTHER ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT ABORTIONS SINCE 2001
MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL.
1. SB-49 has nothing to do with those attempts.
We cannot comment on the reasons they may or may
not have been successful. This is a total
different focus. SB-49 is a "lean muscle" bill.
We have high confidence in how thorough and
specific the bill is drafted.
POINT 5 - SURVIVAL OF FETUS IS NOT CONSIDERED?
1. That is simply incorrect. We've heard
testimony as to the "floating tomb" and the child
being "brainless." We considered that option and
incorporated Paragraph 4, B, 22 (See Tab 1).
"Another physical disorder…arising from the
pregnancy….that would be a major bodily
impairment."
POINT 6 - AN OPPONENT OF THE BILL STATED THAT YOU
CANNOT SEPARATE "PHYSICAL HEALTH" AND "MENTAL HEALTH."
1. With all due respect, President Obama via
Executive Order 13535, case law, and the very
existence of the Hyde Amendment prove otherwise.
Sen. Coghill invites you to look at tab 7 in your
binders. The language is clear to emphasize
"physical disorder", "physical injury", or
"physical illness." It specifically does not
include mental or psychological disorders.
2. In addition, SB 49 supporters, including 3
national doctors and 7 Alaskan doctors
fundamentally disagree with that presumption.
There is a genuine disagreement in the medical
community that mental and psychological
conditions should be included under the
definition of "medically necessary abortion."
9:15:28 AM
Co-Chair Meyer recalled that there had been testimony
suggesting that the legislation could result in a savings
for the state.
Senator Coghill replied that possible savings to the state
were indeterminate.
9:15:50 AM
Co-Chair Meyer wondered about possible cost to the state
for litigating the legislation.
Senator Coghill replied that possible litigation was out of
his control.
9:16:14 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT SB 49 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:16:29 AM
SB 49 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published
indeterminate fiscal note: FN1(DHS).