Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/11/2001 03:01 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 910
SB 91-ABORTION: INFORMED CONSENT;INFORMATION
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that at the last committee hearing on SB 91,
time was short and not everyone was able to testify. Because of
that, Ms. Carmen Nantez, Ms. Pat Salzbo, Ms. Marlee Starnez, Ms.
Neva Starnes, Ms. Jennifer Rudinger, Ms. Jana Franks, and Dr. Bob
Johnson submitted their written testimony to the committee.
Senator Ward's office had also submitted a memorandum giving a
further breakdown on SB 91. He then took testimony.
MS. KAREN VOSBURGH, Executive Director, Alaska Right to Life,
testifying via teleconference, said she had gathered statistical
information about the psychological and physical damage that can be
incurred from an abortion. She said women need to know what can
happen to them because of an abortion and they also need
information about the developing child within them. She said the
abortionist decides what information, if any, to give, and that it
was not in the best interest of the abortionist to dissuade a
client, as they would lose money. She said the abortion industry
generates about $500,000,000 a year and most of that money goes
into the pockets of the abortionists.
MS. VOSBURGH said that SB 91 was not as much an abortion issue as
it was a health issue because there are over 100 complications
associated with abortions. Ms. Vosburgh said she supports SB 91.
MS. KAREN PEARSON, Division of Public Health, Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS), spoke to Section 1(a)(1) - (9) saying
many of the requirements in those sections would make the required
pamphlet a very large document. She suggested that the information
should be put in several different pamphlets, each with different
information. She was not comfortable with asking women to review
all the information if it was not relevant to their situation. She
noted that this is where different pamphlets with different
information would be useful. She gave an example of a woman who
had chosen to go ahead with her pregnancy and then placed the child
with an adoption agency. She said that giving that woman a
pamphlet, showing all the complications of an abortion, would not
be fair.
Number 421
SENATOR COWDERY said insurance companies have policies that include
a lot of information and he felt a pamphlet could be designed to
cover all the information required in SB 91.
MS. PEARSON said that would be difficult because Section 1(B)(7)
says:
describes the fetal development of a typical unborn child
at two-week gestational increments from fertilization to
full-term, including photographs depicting the anatomical
characteristics of a typical unborn child at two-week
gestational increments."
MS. PEARSON said this information and the photographs would have to
be very small to be included in one pamphlet.
Number 331
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked about the example Ms. Pearson gave and if
DHSS had a pamphlet concerning adoption.
MS. PEARSON said DHSS has different types of information but she
said there needs to be clarification on who the pamphlet's audience
is to be. SB 91 says the department shall prepare a pamphlet for,
"Information relating to pregnancy and pregnancy alternatives," but
it is not clear if the pamphlet is to lay out different
alternatives or whether it is to say these are the alternatives to
an abortion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how DHSS came up with the materials it
distributes for planned parenthood.
MS. PEARSON said the department does not put all the information in
one document; several documents are used for different situations.
MS. JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties
Union, read a statement from Dr. Jan Whitefield.
Honorable Senators, I recently read SB 91 proposed by
Senator Ward. I must object to this bill on multiple
grounds. This bill is a thinly veiled attempt squarely
aimed at making it more difficult for women of Alaska to
receive abortions. It contains biased language
throughout, and indirectly suggests placing new
limitations on the availability of the abortion
procedure. The bill claims to be about informed consent.
As physicians we are quite familiar with informed
consent. If there is a complication of a procedure and
informed consent was not obtained, we are painfully aware
of the consequences. Getting proper informed consent
before an abortion is very high on my list of priorities.
Contrary to what some people may think, there is no
[indisc. - end of tape[.
TAPE 01-18, Side A
... If a patient carries a pregnancy to term, our
practice will have a much larger revenue stream than if
the patient has an abortion. There is no incentive on
our part to encourage abortion over an ongoing pregnancy.
The bill starts in a biased manner by saying that it is
meant to 'ensure informed consent before an abortion may
be performed except in cases of medical emergency.' A
pregnancy has several possible outcomes including
carrying and delivery, abortion, adoption, miscarriage,
and ectopic miscarriage, and others. There is no mention
of getting informed consent from women regarding carrying
a pregnancy to term or giving the pregnancy up for
adoption. In my practice as a physician, I perform
abortions as well as multiple other procedures including
both office and hospital procedures. The legislature has
not chosen to pass a bill on how I obtain consent from a
person for a C-section or a hysterectomy, both of which
carry far more risk to the patient than an abortion.
Clearly the abortion is being singled out, but not for
medical reasons. This bill relates to politics and
belief, not medicine or the safety of Alaska women.
Throughout the bill the term unborn child is used. A
review of the 23rd edition of Stedman's Medical
Dictionary reveals that the term unborn or the phrase
unborn child are simply not recognized. There are
medical terms such as blastocyst (ph), morulla (ph)
embryo, fetus, and several other terms referring to the
conceptive. The term unborn child is included to incite
only emotion. On page 2, line 25 the term non-judgmental
is used when the decidedly judgmental phrase - unborn
child - is used in the very same sentence, a
contradiction of terms.
In page 1, line 1 through 3, line 23 a standard pamphlet
of information is described again using biased terms
defined by the legislators not terms recognized in
medical science. Page 2, paragraph 7, lines 19 to 27
describe in detail the pictures that need to be included
in this pamphlet. Why are these to be included, are
these meant to 'educate the patient regarding the fetal
development when she is deciding whether to carry a
pregnancy or whether to have an abortion. If so, where
are the parallel photographs describing the complications
of abortion as well as the complications of carrying the
pregnancy to term. Of what value are these pictures
specified in the bill. When I council patients regarding
an ongoing pregnancy or an abortion, if a patient asks me
for drawings or photographs of a fetus at various stages
of development, I have an encyclopedia containing the
information and I go over it with the patient. But I
tailor the information to the needs of the patient. Each
person is an individual and a standard information packet
alluded to by this bill leaves very little room for
patient individuality.
C. Everett Koop former surgeon general who is no friend
to choice and the American College of Obstetrics and
Gynecology after extensively reviewing the literature
concluded that there is not solid scientific data
suggesting that there are long-term negative
psychological effects from an abortion. Yet paragraph 8,
page 2, line 31 refers to "possible psychological
effects' that have been associated with having an
abortion. Why should a patient be subjected to this
concept when there is no proof that it exists and will
only serve to frighten the patient with false
information. Informed consent should only involve actual
scientific information, not speculation or conjecture.
Actual scientific information is referred to line 26 page
2, if this reference remains in the bill where is the
comparable line referring to the possible psychological
risks of adopting the baby out. Finally, Dr. Whitefield
concludes this bill is not about science, it's not about
medicine, and this bill is not about information or
informed consent.
This bill is simple bias, placing more obstruction in the
paths of women seeking an abortion. The suggested body
of information already available and gathering it as
suggested is duplication of effort. The requirements of
SB 91 serve only as an obstacle intended to discourage
patients from choosing a procedure that is recognized as
one of the safest performed in medicine. The persons
served are not the patients but those who wish to further
obstruct abortion in Alaska.
MS. RUDINGER said she also had statements from Dr. Kathleen Todd
and Dr. Sharon Smith whose comments were basically the same as Dr.
Whitefield's and she would fax them to the committee.
Number 444
MS. ROBIN SMITH, testifying via teleconference, said she is deeply
opposed to Senator Ward's bill. She said that if abortions are to
be prevented, unintended pregnancies that lead to abortions need to
be addressed. SB 91 is an attempt to intimidate women from making
the choice to having an abortion. Ms. Smith said the required
pamphlet was redundant. The decision to have an abortion was a
difficult one and the government should not make women feel guilty
or bad by imposing more barriers. Women are capable of making
moral decisions without government interference. She said that if
the legislature goes forward with SB 91, women also need to be
informed about unintended pregnancies. She said another concern
with SB 91 was the likelihood of receiving child support from an
absent father and how much support the state would provide
throughout a child's life. Ms. Smith said that if SB 91 passed she
would lobby to have this other information included in the
pamphlet.
MS. SMITH said she would support legislation to prevent unintended
pregnancies and she urged the committee to pass the prescription
equity bill, which would make insurance companies cover birth
control. She also urged the passage of the safe surrender bill
that would allow women an anonymous and safe way to relinquish a
newborn child.
MS. DEATRICH SITCHLER, testifying via teleconference from
Anchorage, said she is opposed to SB 91. She said at the age of 14
she was diagnosed with hemophilia, a disease affecting the blood,
and as a result of this condition it is medically dangerous for her
to carry a pregnancy to term. If she were to become pregnant it
would be in her best medical interest to terminate the pregnancy
rather than carry the pregnancy to term. She felt this decision
should only be between her partner, her doctor, and herself - the
government should have no place in this personal painful choice.
She and her partner would find it very painful to listen to a
litany of alternatives to abortion, alternatives that would not be
in her best interest and that could actually threaten her life.
Her greatest objection to SB 91 was in the definition of medical
emergency. Ms. Sitchler would not fall under the medical necessity
exception because having an abortion at that very moment would
probably not be a lifesaving measure or an emergency situation.
Therefore, she would be subject to the extra counseling, which
would be irrelevant to her situation. She said this decision would
be very painful for her and she would only be terminating her
pregnancy to save her own life. She urged the committee to oppose
SB 91.
MS. KAREN VOSBURGH said psychological damages are very real. There
is a sense of depression and a sense of loss that are very common
after an abortion. An abortion also creates the feeling of low
self-esteem and feelings of having compromised values. Feelings of
guilt are the most common reaction to abortion. She said the
suicide rate is phenomenally high among women who have had
abortions. She said that abortion was suppose to reduce teen
pregnancy but the unmarried teen pregnancy rate has risen, and
child abuse was to be eliminated due to abortion but studies show
that there had been an increase in child abuse in the last two
decades. She said abortion had devalued children, born and unborn,
and women were told that abortion would empower them but they were
not told how guilty and angry they would feel. She urged the
committee to pass SB 91.
Number 1003
MR. BOB JOHNSON said that he had been listening to some horrendous
complications from an abortion during the meeting but, in fact,
there were very few complications, and his experience with 700
abortions shows very few incidents with complications or
depression. He said complications from a normal pregnancy far
exceed complications from abortions. He echoed Dr. Whitefield on
Dr. Koop's study that said there were very few complications from
an abortion. He said this type of legislation insults a woman's
intelligence.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if Senator Ward had considered whether he
wanted one piece of information or a series of pamphlets.
MS. SANDRA ALTLAND, staff to Senator Ward, said the pamphlet was
not to replace other pamphlets. The intent of SB 91 was to give
more information than what was available now. She said there was
no hidden agenda to SB 91, Senator Ward was trying to lay out ideas
he would like to see submitted so that when a woman was trying to
make a decision she would have the information she need. She said
Senator Ward would be happy to work with DHSS to develop a pamphlet
that would work.
SENATOR THERRIAULT suggested that the pamphlet could have a
geographically indexed supplement included.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he was incredulous at the comments that had
been received on Senator Ward's attempt to merely distribute some
information. He said:
The same types of comments are made in every totalitarian
society when somebody wants to 'burn up books' - we don't
want that information going out, that information isn't
correct, that information isn't politically correct or
what we want to have out there. So if you're going to
put any information out there that we, the dominant
liberal cause don't want to have out there, why we'll do
everything we can to ban you book. That to me is just
incredible testimony. You would think that people would
want to have the greatest level of information available
to be made readily available. This state has already put
it into law that all of Planned Parenthood's materials
are going to be distributed for them. The very same
people that happily go out and fill up the little
brochure boxes at every place to make certain that
Planned Parenthood's documents get disbursed are some of
the same people we're listening who say you can't
possibly give that information to anybody else or require
that they should have an opportunity to see that
information before going through a procedure. I consider
that somewhat amazing in the 20th Century.
MS. ALTLAND said there are doctors who take the time and give good
information, but if they are not recognizing any psychological
harm, how can they be fully informing the woman they are working
with.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said there seemed to be quite a medical dispute
about that. He said the items included in the pamphlet should be
as accurate as possible so they cannot be disputed.
MS. KAREN PEARSON clarified that the department's interpretation of
planned parenthood in the statute was not Planned Parenthood the
organization. DHSS does not distribute Planned Parenthood
materials. The information DHSS distributes to the public is about
planning to be a parent.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he understood that but if he were to put the
department's documents next to Planned Parenthood's documents he
would have a hard time seeing much difference.
MS. PEARSON said that the department does its best to get the
information out that it believes is appropriate and to inform the
public on all perspectives.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the department was pushing abstention or
was it handing out condoms.
MS. PEARSON said DHSS has a very active program for teenagers in
relation to abstinence and there are no abstinence programs for
adults.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if DHSS kept any statistical information on
the age of people receiving abortions, especially those receiving
state financing.
MS. PEARSON said the department does not have abortion reporting.
She said there was a piece of legislation going through this year
that mandated the reporting of terminated pregnancies. The
department does have information on terminated pregnancies paid for
with public dollars though.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if DHSS had information on how many times a
woman has had a state paid abortion.
MS. PEARSON said she did not have the answer to that question. She
would have to check with the division dealing with Medicaid.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that in his district there were five girls,
still in high school, each of which had already had three abortions
all paid for by the state. He said that whatever is being done to
convince people about abstinence or use of birth control devices
was not working very well and the ultimate solution is, "you don't
have to take a pill and you don't have to worry about using a
condom, if in fact you get pregnant, just go get the state to give
you an abortion."
SENATOR COWDERY moved SB 91 from committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, SB 91 moved from
committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|