Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/04/2013 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB49 | |
| SB56 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 49-MEDICAID PAYMENT FOR ABORTIONS; TERMS
1:40:24 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 49. [SSSB 49 was
before the committee.]
1:41:48 PM
JENNIFER ALLEN, Director of Public Policy, Planned Parenthood
Votes Northwest, introduced herself and Laura Einstein. She
expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak and
respectfully asked the members to oppose SB 49. She said this is
necessary to protect the freedom and privacy of all Alaska
women, regardless of their income, and to ensure that they are
able to make their own pregnancy decisions in consultation with
their doctors.
MS. ALLEN stated that Planned Parenthood is uniquely qualified
to speak to SB 49, because it is a healthcare provider whose
mission is to ensure access to high-quality reproductive
healthcare for all. She relayed that Planned Parenthood operates
five health centers in Alaska, and the majority of services it
provides to more than 7,000 Alaskans are preventative. These
include cancer screening, birth control, and screening for
sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. She said Planned
Parenthood is committed to providing preventative services to
ensure that women and men are supported in planning and spacing
the pregnancies they have. When a woman makes the personal and
often complex decision to end a pregnancy, Planned Parenthood is
proud to be a place that provides safe and legal care for the
woman.
MS. ALLEN explained that the first reason that Planned
Parenthood is asking the committee to oppose SB 49 is because it
puts women's health at risk. It may cause women to avoid or
delay seeking abortion services, which may increase the chance
of their continuing a health-threatening pregnancy or push their
abortion into the second trimester. Pregnancy decisions should
be made by women and their doctors, yet SB 49 puts politicians
directly between women and their doctors. She emphasized that
doctors, not government, are the right ones to decide what is
medically necessary. The Alaska Supreme Court recognizes and the
constitution requires that women's pregnancy decisions (whether
to terminate or carry to term) be given equal protection under
the law. Thus, abortion services must be provided to low-income
women so that their pregnancy choices are not restricted by
their economic status. In addition, the definition of "medically
necessary" may not be further limited without discriminating
against women who rely on the government for healthcare. It is a
simple matter of fairness, she said.
1:45:24 PM
LAURA EINSTEIN Chief Legal Counsel, Planned Parenthood of the
Great Northwest, said she would talk about why the bill isn't
needed, why it isn't constitutional given the holdings in the
2001 decision in State of Alaska v. Planned Parenthood, and how
similar efforts to oppose a more stringent test for Medicaid
coverage of abortions than for other procedures have failed. She
noted that the sponsor statement says the bill is needed because
the term "medically necessary abortion" has "acquired a
constitutional component of unknown scope." Planned Parenthood
respectfully disagrees, she said.
First, the Medicaid rules have a definition of "medically
necessary" that is used for nearly all services covered by
Medicaid. That definition focuses on physician standards of
practice and trusts Alaska physicians to evaluate their
patients' needs and provide appropriate care. Second, the U.S.
Supreme Court has articulated a definition that is helpful for
physicians in determining medical necessity. The U.S. Supreme
Court stated that whether an abortion is necessary is a
professional judgment that takes into account all factors
relevant to the wellbeing of the patient including physical,
emotional, psychological, familial, and age. This allows the
attending physician the latitude needed to make the best medical
judgment. Third, the Alaska courts have defined "medically
necessary" for abortions. In the 2001 Medicaid funding case, the
Alaska Superior Court defined "medically necessary" in its order
compelling the state to start paying for medically necessary
abortions. The court stated that an abortion is deemed medically
necessary if it prevents the death or disability of a woman or
to ameliorate a condition harmful to the woman's physical or
psychological health. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the
trial court decision, effectively affirming that definition.
MS. EINSTEIN stated that SB 49 is unnecessary because the Alaska
courts and the Medicaid rules already provide the parameters for
determining what a medically necessary abortion is. In addition,
the court made several findings that are relevant to SB 49 and
prove that the bill is not constitutional. The court framed the
issue as the protection of either continuing or terminating
pregnancy from discriminatory governmental treatment. SB 49
requires a higher bar for abortion than any other service paid
for by Medicaid. It is therefore discriminatory treatment of
abortion, which is a fundamental right in Alaska.
The Alaska Supreme Court in the Medicaid funding case also made
it clear that any rule involving a fundamental right, as SB 49
does, must be neutral. That means a definition cannot be based
on the fact that some people oppose abortion. The court held
that when the state government seeks to provide medical care for
the poor, it is obliged to do so in a neutral manner so as not
to infringe on the constitutional rights of Alaska citizens. The
state is prohibited from using criteria that imposes a
discriminatory burden on the exercise of a fundamental right.
MS. EINSTEIN maintained that SB 49 is not a neutral bill because
it contains a definition for "medically necessary" that is
beyond the standards applied for other Medicaid services.
Because it favors continuing a pregnancy over termination, it is
not a neutral bill.
She said the court also framed the equal protection violation
that occurs when a woman who terminates her pregnancy is treated
differently compared to a woman who continues her pregnancy. The
court stated that a woman who carries her pregnancy to term and
a woman who terminates her pregnancy exercise the same
fundamental right to reproductive choice. The equal protection
clause in the Alaska Constitution does not permit the government
to discriminate against either woman. They must be granted
access to state health care under the same terms as any
similarly situated person. She pointed out that the equal
protection analysis in the 2001 decision is applicable to SB 49.
The bill has the effect of governmental discrimination because
it imposes a more onerous definition on abortion than is
required for the treatment of pregnancy.
MS. EINSTEIN explained that if there is a constitutional
challenge of this legislation, it will be up to the state to
prove that there is a compelling need for this definition of
"medically necessary." She noted that the sponsor statement
justifies the bill as filling a gap, but it doesn't explain why
this particular definition is necessary. It appears that the
only possible justification is to limit women's access to
abortions, but the Alaska Constitution does not permit that.
1:51:34 PM
MS. EINSTEIN stated that since 2001 there have been four
attempts to limit Medicaid paid abortions. In 2002 legislation
was introduced that sought to define "medically necessary"
almost exactly the same as SB 49 does. The attorney general's
office evaluated that bill and determined it would likely be
found unconstitutional and result in costly litigation. In both
2010 and 2012 Legislative Legal Services was asked about the
power of the legislature to limit the definition of "medically
necessary." In both instances legislative counsel stated that if
the Alaska Supreme Court adheres to its findings in State of
Alaska v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, the state would not be
able to burden the right of abortion services unless the same
burden is placed on medical services to continue a pregnancy. If
there is no comparable burden on the continuation of a
pregnancy, the state cannot burden the right to abortion
services. She emphasized that that opinion fully applies to SB
49.
MS. EINSTEIN said that in 2012, the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) added a certification process for
physicians, but left the determination of whether an abortion is
medically necessary in the purview of the physician. This is as
it should be. She urged the committee to maintain the current
status and rule.
1:54:37 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked if Planned Parenthood finds it acceptable
for abortion to be used as birth control.
MS. EINSTEIN said she believes that a woman's decision to have
an abortion is a very complex decision with many factors, and
the idea that a woman uses abortion as birth control is....
SENATOR DYSON interjected that it is repulsive.
MS. EINSTEIN continued to say that as a matter of policy and
belief, those at Planned Parenthood do not judge any woman. Her
life may be very complicated and she may have any number of
reasons for her decision.
MS. ALLEN added that she and Ms. Einstein do not work in the
health centers, but the health center staff would probably say
that is not the reality of what they see. It's a deeply personal
decision that women make and a lot of factors go into it that no
one else knows about.
1:56:48 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked if a woman would be turned away if she said
she had changed her mind and did not want to continue her
pregnancy.
MS. ALLEN said Planned Parenthood supports women in exercising
their safe and legal right to make whatever pregnancy decision
is right for the woman, including abortion. She added that
Planned Parenthood doesn't walk in the woman's shoes and doesn't
know why she may have changed her mind.
SENATOR DYSON asked if she said that all medical procedures
should have comparable medical screening processes
MS. EINSTEIN clarified that she was talking about the Alaska
Supreme Court decision that said that a different, more adverse
burden cannot be placed on a woman who decides to terminate a
pregnancy compared to a woman who decides to continue a
pregnancy. She noted that she also cited legislative counsel who
said the standards for defining "medically necessary" for
coverage of abortion would have to be the same for coverage of
pregnancy.
SENATOR DYSON asked how Planned Parenthood would define an
elective abortion as opposed to one for which there was a
medical necessity.
MS. EINSTEIN said she understands there is this concept of
elective abortion, but she doesn't know what it means. She
continued that a woman can get in a situation where she has a
medical condition of pregnancy and for many reasons related to
health she may decide that the best decision is to have an
abortion. In addition, the determination of medically necessary
will be made by a physician. He or she will sign the certificate
attesting that the woman's health was an important factor and
therefore justified the state paying for that service, just as
the physician could ask the state to pay for other services.
2:00:32 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked at what point a right conveys an obligation
on others to pay for a service that some people find morally
repugnant. He noted that the Runaway Slave Act was a similar
issue. People were forced to pay for law enforcement and the
courts to send escaped slaves back, even those who found slavery
morally repugnant.
MS. EINSTEIN said the Alaska Supreme Court answered that
question in State of Alaska v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska. It
said the state doesn't have to pay for anything, but once it
commits to paying for a program like health care for low income
persons, it must do so in a neutral and nondiscriminatory way.
2:03:17 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked if she was aware of instances at Planned
Parenthood where a woman was denied coverage for a Medicaid paid
abortion because she was unable to qualify based on medical
necessity.
MS. ALLEN replied that she wasn't aware of that, but she wasn't
involved in the billing process.
MS. EINSTEIN added that if the physician certified that the
abortion was medically necessary, Medicaid would pay for it.
Whether there have been situations where a physician decided an
abortion wasn't medically necessary isn't something she or Ms.
Allen would know about, but a claim would not be submitted to
Medicaid in that circumstance.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said she was trying to understand what advice
Planned Parenthood gives a woman and what other safety nets are
available in Alaska both for carrying to term and for
termination.
MS. EINSTEIN explained that an abortion is never performed at
Planned Parenthood without the woman going through an education
process so that she understands all her options. She
acknowledged that many women call Planned Parenthood having
already made up their minds, but they still go through the
education process. Every woman is asked questions to determine
how confident she is in her decision, and to make sure that it
truly is her decision.
She addressed the effect of SB 49. If it passes with the current
language, very few women would qualify for coverage under
Medicaid. Some of those women may be able to raise the money to
pay for an abortion, but it might take longer. Right now, there
are no physicians in Alaska who perform second trimester
abortions, so any woman past 14 weeks will have to fly to
Washington state. That means she'll have to raise even more
money to have the procedure. The majority of women who otherwise
qualify for Medicaid services would not meet the standard.
2:07:41 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked under what aspect of the medically
necessary standard are most poor women able to qualify for
Medicaid abortions today.
MS. EINSTEIN explained that Planned Parenthood physicians have
been provided with the language from the court decisions, which
is to ameliorate a condition harmful to a woman's physical or
psychological health. That is the standard of harmful, whereas
SB 49 talks about a serious risk to the life or health of the
woman, which means either death or impairment of a major bodily
function. That is an extremely high bar, and most people don't
get that sick in a pregnancy.
MS. ALLEN said it isn't possible to create an exhaustive list of
all the conditions that might result in harm to a woman's life
or health, and that speaks to why Planned Parenthood believes
that a more general medical necessity certification by a doctor
is the appropriate standard.
2:10:41 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked how often women come to Planned Parenthood
seeking treatment after attempting to self-abort.
MS. EINSTEIN said she has been with Planned Parenthood for five
years and was not aware of that happening.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked the sponsor to consider the potential
unintended consequences of narrowing the definition too much.
She questioned whether some women may attempt a self-induced
abortion and whether that might ironically result in a medical
situation that would allow her to qualify.
2:12:33 PM
CHAIR COGHILL acknowledged that his view of the equality issue
was different than Planned Parenthood, and the fact that there
isn't unlimited health care for Alaskans generally shows that
there will be limitations. He also offered his belief that the
Alaska Supreme Court gave good criteria, but left open the
difference between elective and medically necessary. The bill
seeks to follow those guidelines closely, but there will be
debate about the emotional side, he said.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that former Senators Davis and Lincoln were
present.
2:14:47 PM
MYRTLE GOHRING, representing herself, Anchorage, AK, testified
in opposition to SB 49. She said that in nine days she will be
90 years old and her experience of bridging a time of illegal
back-alley abortions and life after Roe v. Wade will perhaps
clarify her position. She relayed that illegal abortions,
despite the risk, were often the only family planning available
for her generation. The consequences were often serious but only
then could the family doctor be called in to clean up the
damage. She questioned why anyone would want to go back to that.
She highlighted that the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that
women's pregnancy decisions, whether to terminate or carry the
pregnancy to term, are to be given equal protection under the
law.
MS. GOHRING stated support for the court's decision not only for
the health and wellbeing of the mothers, but also for the sake
of the children involved. She explained that for more than 30
years she worked as a teacher and guidance counselor and it
wasn't difficult to identify the children with low self-esteem,
and overall feelings of being unwanted. Unfortunately, her work
with many of their mothers or care takers confirmed this. She
said that the human and social cost of denying abortion rights
is too high for everyone, and emphasized the importance of
continuing to give women and their doctors the freedom to plan
their families without governmental interference.
2:17:42 PM
JOANIE CLEARY, representing herself, Anchorage, AK, testified in
opposition to SB 49. She said she is a social worker who has
worked in the field of child abuse and neglect for more than 10
years, and she believes that every child has the right to be
born wanted and cared for. She characterized SB 49 as another
attempt to chip away at a woman's right to choose abortion, even
though the procedure is still legal in this country. She
emphasized that the legislature should not get involved in the
personal and medical decisions that should be between a woman
and her doctor. At a time when services for poor people are
being eroded, passage of SB 49 would further harm poor women's
ability to make appropriate decision about care for themselves
and their families. Referring to the question about whether
taxpayers should be forced to pay for services they find
repugnant, she pointed out that in a society ruled by law, many
people end up paying for services they don't agree with. She
cited examples and urged the committee to oppose SB 49.
2:19:44 PM
ALAN SMITH, representing himself, Anchorage, AK, testified in
opposition to SB 49. He stated agreement with the previous
comments and offered his belief that the bill second-guesses the
professional judgment of medical providers in determining what
is medically necessary. SB 49 is not needed.
DONNA STARK, representing herself, Anchorage, AK, testified in
opposition to SB 49 and stated agreement with all the previous
testimony today. She pointed out that in 2005 the legislature
passed AS 18.05.032 that created the informed consent website
regarding pregnancy and pregnancy alternatives. It requires any
woman seeking an abortion to sign an affidavit verifying that
she has had access to the information. She continued that the
statute provides that the website contain objective, unbiased
information that describes abortion procedures, medical risks
and possible complications, and possible physical and
psychological effects that have been associated with pregnancy
and having an abortion.
The website further states that risks increase as the pregnancy
advances. Ms. Stark said that in Alaska, the risk of dying from
pregnancy is 7.4 per 100,000 live births. Between 1990 and 1999
there were 8 pregnancy-related deaths. High blood pressure,
blood clots, and heavy bleeding were responsible for those
deaths. Under the heading "high blood pressure risk" it states
that a woman with high blood pressure has a higher risk of
complications. More importantly, it states that a woman who has
never had high blood pressure can develop it during pregnancy.
Under the section on abortion risks, it states that the overall
risk of a woman dying as a direct result of illegal abortion is
less than 1 per 100,000. It also states that the earlier in the
pregnancy that the abortion is performed the safer it is for the
woman. A review of the stages of embryonic and fetal development
would also indicate that if a woman does not want to face the
higher risk of death associated with the complications of
pregnancy, it is necessary for her safety to have an abortion
early and not wait for further fetal development.
MS. STARK said that SB 49 contradicts the information provided
on the informed consent website. It takes a medical decision out
of the individual woman's and her doctor's control and places it
in the hands of legislators, which is in direct violation of the
constitution. She asked which legislator who votes for the bill
is prescient enough to know which pregnancy will lead to
complications. She reiterated her opposition to SB 49.
PAM CLEMENS representing herself, Anchorage, AK, testified in
opposition to SB 49. She said she opposes the legislation
because similar legislation has been deemed unconstitutional,
and because she believes that all Alaskans should have equal
access to health care, including abortion. She urged the members
to listen to their constituents and oppose the legislation.
2:24:45 PM
ELANN MOREN representing herself, Anchorage, AK, testified in
opposition to SB 49. She stated agreement with the foregoing
testimony and added that the bill is blatantly biased against
poor women. It will open the door to the return of back-alley
abortionists that Alaska put out of business in 1970, four years
before Roe v. Wade passed. She shared her experience while in
high school of being raped and finding herself pregnant. She
described the horror of undergoing old wives remedies for
miscarriage, an illegal abortion that didn't work, and her
attempted suicide. She said she is sharing this story to
illustrate the many ways that an unplanned pregnancy can occur.
SB 49 would take away a poor woman's ability to seek a safe,
legal abortion from a properly trained professional. She said
she is thankful for the lawmakers in 1970 that put illegal
abortionists out of business, and believes that there is no more
need for government involvement on the issue. Alaska has trusted
doctors to work with their patients to determine what is best
for the patient. Pregnancy decisions should be left up to a
woman in consultation with her doctor, her family, and her
faith.
2:29:12 PM
ALBERT BOWLING representing himself, Anchorage, AK, stated that
he was speaking in opposition to SB 49, which would limit the
definition of what is medically necessary by prohibiting any
mental health evaluations of women seeking abortions covered by
Medicaid funds. He relayed that he has suffered from a mental
illness in the past and can clearly state that when a person is
confronted with an extreme crisis in their social situation,
their mental health is of significant consequence. He said he
can imagine that the mental health issues of a woman finding
herself with an unintended and unwanted pregnancy could be
momentous. He observed that the state seems thinks that the
mental health issues of poor woman to be markedly inconsistent
with those of other women. It's an argument he doesn't buy into
and believes it is an attack on poor women. He concluded that
access to abortion in the U.S. is legal and constitutionally
protected, and he finds this attempt to deny poor women access
to the same level of health care available to other citizens
very objectionable.
2:31:24 PM
SUSAN PACILLO representing herself, Anchorage, AK, stated that
she absolutely opposes SB 49 and was appealing to the committee
to do what is right based on the Alaska Constitution. If the
bill were to pass, the state would spend a lot of money in court
when it could instead spend the money on birth control or
education or to feed poor children. It will be a waste of both
time and money, because the constitution says that funding for
poor women for abortion services is required.
2:32:32 PM
MARIAM LANDAU representing herself, Anchorage, AK, urged the
committee to oppose SB 49. She said the definition of "medically
necessary" has already been decided by the constitution and
subsequent court decisions. From her perspective it is a
question of equal access, which is a basic right in the
constitution. Abortion should not be singled out and treated any
different than any other medical procedure. The discussion last
week about what should be included in the list [of medical
conditions] illustrates that politicians are not the best people
to make these decisions. In cases where a woman's health is at
risk, the woman and her doctor should be the ones to decide
[whether to continue the pregnancy or not.]
2:34:03 PM
RHONDA WIDENER, representing herself, Fairbanks, AK, stated that
for a variety of reasons she absolutely opposes SB 49. She
stated that she is a married, working mother and if she found
herself unexpectedly pregnant tomorrow she would have difficulty
paying for both child care and her astronomical fuel bill. She
suggested that the legislature should spend time addressing her
energy expenses rather than her reproductive decisions. She said
she doesn't come close to qualifying for Medicaid, but she has
difficulty obtaining family planning resources with the health
insurance she pays for. Being a low income woman in the state of
Alaska and relying on Medicaid has to be unimaginably difficult.
Abortion is never an easy decision for a woman, but it's not an
area that elected officials should interfere in. She further
asserted that passing the bill won't save a dime.
2:37:05 PM
CLOVER SIMON representing herself, Anchorage, AK, characterized
SB 49 as yet another attempt to narrow the circumstances in
which a poor woman can access abortion services. To actually
reduce abortion rates in Alaska, she suggested looking at the
options for providing family planning services for low-income
citizens. She noted that for citizens under the 250 percent of
the federal poverty level there is a 90/10 match program through
Medicaid that Alaska could be taking advantage of but isn't. She
urged the committee to look at putting something like that into
effect and to begin looking at what can be done to make sure
that the children born in Alaska are wanted and coming into a
family that is prepared to raise them as best they can. She
offered her opinion that SB 49 is unconstitutional and expressed
hope that instead of wasting money on lawsuits, the state would
spend money on birth control services and education for people
across Alaska to try and reduce the number of abortions.
2:40:09 PM
KIME MCCLINTOCK representing herself, Anchorage, AK, testified
in opposition to SB 49. She said she was born and raised in
Alaska, and plans to bring the skills she is learning back to
Alaska once she completes her master's degree in public health.
She offered her belief that doctors, not politicians, should
determine what is medically necessary. From her perspective SB
49 essentially tries to create two classes of women, and that is
wrong. As stated earlier, limiting access won't actually reduce
the number of abortions in Alaska. She suggested the legislature
instead ensure that all women have access to affordable family
planning.
2:42:03 PM
LISA EGAN LAGERQUIST, representing herself, Juneau, AK, stated
that she, too, was testifying to urge the committee to oppose SB
49. Noting that testimony during the first hearing was that
having an abortion could be harmful to a woman's mental health,
she said it's important to understand that having a child and
being pregnant isn't easy either. She characterized SB 49 as an
attempt to take decision-making power away from women, and
offered her belief that this medical decision should be between
only a woman and her doctor. She urged the committee to vote no
on SB 49 and spend time on more important issues.
BETTYE DAVIS, representing herself, Anchorage, AK, said she
appreciates the need to define medically necessary but from her
perspective the discussion should not take place in the form of
a bill. She reviewed her efforts as former chair of the Health
and Social Services Committee to initiate the discussion with
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), and asked
if the committee had solicited input from either the department
or physicians. She asked the sponsor to consider withdrawing the
bill and holding the discussion in another venue, because a
court challenge would ensue if it were to pass. She urged
bringing the right people to the table to come to a clear
understanding of what "medically necessary" means in order for
the state to pay.
CHAIR COGHILL said he would take her words to heart and continue
the conversation, but he would not withdraw the bill.
2:47:11 PM
PAMELA SAMASH representing herself, Nenana, AK, testified in
support of SB 49. She stated that the government has the
important job of keeping the public safe at all stages of life.
She asked the committee to remember that when a pregnant woman
is harmed or murdered, the criminal is prosecuted for harming
two people, not just one. A video called silent scream shows an
abortion of the very people that are being decided on today, she
said. Referring to the concern about emotional distress, she
recounted her terror when she faced an unplanned pregnancy. The
experience at Planned Parenthood was different than was
testified to earlier, she said. There was no education process,
not even an ultrasound. She asked the committee to pass the
bill, because taxes should not pay for the death of children
unless it is a medical emergency to the mother.
2:49:47 PM
JEAN JAMES representing herself, Fairbanks, AK, testified in
opposition to SB 49. She said she grew up during the time that
abortions were illegal, and it did nothing to stop them. It made
it worse for everyone because a lot of women were maimed. By
contrast, countries with liberal abortion laws, easy access to
birth control, and excellent sex education have abortion rates
that are lower than the U.S. She said it is her strong belief
that the decision of a medically necessary abortion should be
made by a medical doctor and not by legislative mandate. In fact
it's ironic that people who do not want government in their
lives can support this bill. She urged the committee to vote no
on SB 49 and instead focus on options that reduce the need for
abortions and other more pressing issues such as energy, air
pollution, the economy, and education.
2:52:17 PM
HEATHER BRANDON representing herself, Juneau, AK, testified in
opposition to SB 49. She said that last year in Ireland a woman
died because the physicians were afraid to give her an abortion.
She asked if a woman in Alaska would have to die like the woman
in Ireland for people to understand that this is not a decision
for politicians to make.
2:54:17 PM
PHILIP STEWART representing himself, Juneau, AK, said he was
appalled that SB 49 was being considered because equal
opportunity under both state and federal law is mandated to all
women to make their own health and reproductive choices.
However, that opportunity does not exist without the resources
necessary to pursue that opportunity. SB 49 would deny those
resources and the opportunity to poor women. Passing SB 49 will
force poor women to bear and raise children they can't afford,
he said. This may condemn those children and their children's
children to continuing poverty. He maintained that everyone
knows that if SB 49 is enacted it will be in violation of the
Alaska Constitution and will end up before the Alaska Supreme
Court. He characterized the bill as cruel and wrong and a
grandstanding ploy to appeal to a small but vocal voting bloc.
2:55:45 PM
SENATOR DYSON stated that he takes great offense at being told
that he is grandstanding, because his opinions are deeply held.
MR. STEWART apologized.
2:56:50 PM
CHAIR COGHILL observed that it's easy to impugn the motives of
people standing on either side of this issue.
MR. STEWART reiterated his apology.
2:57:13 PM
CHAIR COGHILL held SB 49 in committee and kept public testimony
open.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB0049B Sponsor Substitute.pdf |
SJUD 2/27/2013 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/4/2013 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/5/2013 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/11/2013 5:00:00 PM |
SB 49 |
| Sectional SB 49.doc |
SJUD 2/27/2013 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/4/2013 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/5/2013 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/11/2013 5:00:00 PM |
SB 49 |
| Sponsor Statement - Medically Necessary.docx |
SJUD 3/4/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 49 Sponsor Statement |
| SB0056A.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 56 |
| Sectional.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 56 |
| Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 56 |
| Factors Driving AK Prison Pop Growth.docx |
SJUD 3/4/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 56 Factors Driving AK Prison Population Growth |
| Reclassification Presentation_Edited_02_15_13.pptx |
SJUD 3/4/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 56 Reclassification Prsentation |
| LRS Fiscal Impact of Reclassifying Misconduct Involving a Controlled Substance IV.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 56 |