Legislature(1997 - 1998)

04/25/1997 01:06 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         April 25, 1997                                        
                           1:06 p.m.                                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
                                                                               
 Representative Joe Green, Chairman                                            
 Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman                                       
 Representative Brian Porter                                                   
 Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                
 Representative Jeannette James                                                
 Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                
                                                                               
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
                                                                               
 Representative Eric Croft                                                     
                                                                               
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
                                                                               
 SENATE BILL NO. 106                                                           
 "An Act relating to the bond required of a notary public."                    
                                                                               
      - MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                 
                                                                               
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 112(JUD)                                               
 "An Act relating to marriage licenses; and transferring                       
 responsibility for marriage licensing from judicial officers to the           
 state registrar of vital statistics."                                         
                                                                               
      - MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                 
                                                                               
 CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 38(JUD)                         
 "An Act relating to anatomical gifts, living wills, and do not                
 resuscitate orders."                                                          
                                                                               
      - MOVED HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                              
                                                                               
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 3(JUD)                                                 
 "An Act authorizing prosecution and trial in the district court of            
 municipal curfew violations, and providing for punishment of minors           
 upon conviction for violation of a curfew ordinance."                         
                                                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 234                                                            
 "An Act relating to assistance for abortions under the general                
 relief program; and relating to financial responsibility for the              
 costs of abortions."                                                          
                                                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 245                                                            
 "An Act relating to minimum sentences for assault in the fourth               
 degree that is a crime involving domestic violence; providing that            
 a prisoner may not contact the victim of the offense when provided            
 access to a telephone or otherwise immediately after an arrest; and           
 amending Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."                      
                                                                               
      - BILL CANCELLED                                                         
                                                                               
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
                                                                               
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
                                                                               
 BILL:  SB 106                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: NOTARY PUBLIC BOND                                               
 SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST                                              
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 02/26/97       519    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/26/97       519    (S)   JUDICIARY                                         
 03/07/97              (S)   JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 03/07/97              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/10/97       653    (S)   JUD RPT  2DP 1NR                                  
 03/10/97       653    (S)   DP: PEARCE, MILLER; NR: ELLIS                     
 03/10/97       653    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COURT)                          
 03/12/97              (S)   RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/12/97              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 03/12/97       690    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  3/12/97                        
 03/12/97       696    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 03/12/97       696    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                         
                             UNAN CONSENT                                      
 03/12/97       696    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  SB 106                       
 03/12/97       696    (S)   PASSED Y20 N-                                     
 03/12/97       702    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 03/14/97       661    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/14/97       661    (H)   JUDICIARY                                         
 04/25/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
                                                                               
 BILL:  SB 112                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: MARRIAGE LICENSING FUNCTIONS                                     
 SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST                                              
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 03/05/97       571    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/05/97       571    (S)   JUDICIARY                                         
 03/26/97              (S)   JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 03/26/97              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/01/97       915    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  3DP        SAME TITLE                
 04/01/97       916    (S)   DP: TAYLOR, PEARCE, MILLER                        
 04/01/97       916    (S)   ZERO FNS TO SB (COURT, DHSS)                      
 04/03/97              (S)   RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 04/03/97              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/03/97       958    (S)   ZERO FNS TO SB APPLY TO CS                        
                             (COURT,DHSS)                                      
 04/03/97       957    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/3/97                         
 04/03/97       959    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/03/97       960    (S)   JUD  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/03/97       960    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                         
                             UNAN CONSENT                                      
 04/03/97       960    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 112(JUD)                 
 04/03/97       960    (S)   PASSED Y20 N-                                     
 04/03/97       966    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/04/97       984    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/04/97       984    (H)   JUDICIARY                                         
 04/25/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
                                                                               
 BILL:  SB 38                                                                 
 SHORT TITLE: ANATOMICAL GIFTS, LIVING WILLS & DNR ORDER                      
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR                                                 
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 01/10/97        24    (S)   PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/97                          
 01/13/97        24    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/13/97        24    (S)   HES, JUD                                          
 01/24/97       125    (S)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED                     
                             -REFERRALS                                        
 01/24/97       125    (S)   HES, JUD                                          
 01/31/97              (S)   HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                 
 01/31/97              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 02/03/97              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 02/03/97       207    (S)   HES RPT  4DP 1NR                                  
 02/03/97       207    (S)   DP:WILKEN, WARD, LEMAN, GREEN;                    
                             NR:ELLIS                                          
 02/03/97       207    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO SS (DHSS)                          
 02/03/97       207    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SS (DPS)                      
 02/05/97       237    (S)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED FOLLOWING                      
                             JUDICIARY                                         
 02/14/97              (S)   JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 02/14/97              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/17/97       379    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  3DP       SAME TITLE                 
 02/17/97       379    (S)   DP:  TAYLOR, PARNELL, PEARCE                      
 02/17/97       379    (S)   FN SAME AS PREVIOUS (DHSS)                        
 02/20/97       429    (S)   ZERO FN SAME AS PREVIOUS (DPS)                    
 02/25/97              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 02/25/97       492    (S)   FIN RPT  5DP 2NR  (JUD)CS                         
 02/25/97       492    (S)   DP: SHARP, PEARCE, DONLEY, TORGERSON,             
 02/25/97       492    (S)   PARNELL        NR:  ADAMS, PHILLIPS               
 02/25/97       492    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (DHSS)                                
 02/25/97       492    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)                            
 02/26/97              (S)   RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 02/26/97              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 02/27/97       536    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  2/27/97                        
 02/27/97       538    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 02/27/97       538    (S)   JUD  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 02/27/97       539    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                         
                             UNAN CONSENT                                      
 02/27/97       539    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME CSSSSB 38(JUD)                
 02/27/97       539    (S)   PASSED Y17 N- E3                                  
 02/27/97       543    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 03/05/97       535    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/05/97       535    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                
 04/18/97              (H)   JUD AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 04/18/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/25/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
                                                                               
 BILL:  SB 3                                                                 
 SHORT TITLE: MINOR'S CURFEW VIOLATIONS                                        
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PEARCE, Donley                                         
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 01/03/97        14    (S)   PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97                           
 01/13/97        14    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/13/97        14    (S)   HES,JUD                                           
 02/21/97              (S)   HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                 
 02/21/97              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 02/21/97       446    (S)   HES RPT  2DP 2NR 1AM                              
 02/21/97       446    (S)   DP:WILKEN,WARD;NR:ELLIS,GREEN;                    
                             AM:LEMAN                                          
 02/21/97       446    (S)   FISCAL NOTE (COURT)                               
 02/21/97       446    (S)   ZERO FN (DPS)                                     
 02/21/97       446    (S)   INDETERMINATE FNS (ADM, DHSS)                     
 02/21/97       446    (S)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED FOLLOWING                      
                             JUDICIARY                                         
 03/07/97              (S)   JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                     
 03/07/97              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/10/97       652    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  3DP 1NR      NEW TITLE               
 03/10/97       652    (S)   DP: PEARCE, MILLER, PARNELL;                      
                             NR: ELLIS                                         
 03/14/97       739    (S)   PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN APPLIES                 
                             (DHSS)                                            
 03/21/97              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/21/97              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 03/21/97              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 03/25/97              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/25/97              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 03/25/97              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 03/25/97       850    (S)   FIN RPT  4DP 2NR   JUD CS                         
 03/25/97       850    (S)   DP: PEARCE, SHARP, PARNELL, TORGERSON             
 03/25/97       850    (S)   NR: PHILLIPS, ADAMS                               
 03/25/97       850    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (COURT)                               
 03/25/97       850    (S)   PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FNS(ADM, DHSS)             
 03/25/97       850    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)                            
 04/09/97              (S)   RLS AT 11:16 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 04/14/97              (S)   RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 04/14/97              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/15/97      1144    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/15/97                        
 04/15/97      1144    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/15/97      1145    (S)   JUD  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/15/97      1145    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                         
                             UNAN CONSENT                                      
 04/15/97      1145    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 3(JUD)                  
 04/15/97      1145    (S)   PASSED Y15 N2 E3                                  
 04/15/97      1145    (S)   DUNCAN  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/16/97      1227    (S)   RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP                      
 04/16/97      1228    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/17/97      1131    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/17/97      1131    (H)   JUDICIARY                                         
 04/25/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 234                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: ABORTIONS UNDER GENERAL RELIEF PROGRAM                           
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN, Green, Kohring, Kott, Dyson,            
 Sanders, Kelly                                                                
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-DATE             ACTION                                      
 04/04/97       990    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/04/97       990    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                
 04/07/97      1019    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): DYSON                               
 04/08/97      1030    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): SANDERS                             
 04/09/97      1047    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): KELLY                               
 04/23/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 04/23/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/25/97              (H)   JUD AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 120                        
                                                                               
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
                                                                               
 DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney                                        
 Office of the Administrative Director                                         
 Alaska Court System                                                           
 820 West 4th Avenue                                                           
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501-2005                                                 
 Telephone:  (907) 264-8265                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented SB 106 and CSSB 112(JUD).                      
                                                                               
 JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant                                            
    to Senator Robin Taylor                                                    
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 30                                                     
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4906                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented sponsor statement for HCS CSSSSB
                      38(JUD).                                                 
                                                                               
 KARYN DENTON, Associate Director                                              
 LifeCenter Northwest                                                          
 600 Broadway, Suite 260                                                       
 Seattle, Washington  98122-5371                                               
 (After August 1, 1997:                                                        
 2575 76th Avenue SE                                                           
 Mercer Island, Washington 98040-2758)                                         
 Telephone:  (888) 543-3287                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD).                         
                                                                               
 EDWARD HUPPMAN, JR., Executive Director                                       
 LifeCenter Northwest                                                          
 600 Broadway, Suite 260                                                       
 Seattle, Washington  98122-5371                                               
 (See above for address after August 1, 1997)                                  
 Telephone:  (888) 543-3287                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD).                         
                                                                               
 JENS SAAKVITNE, Director                                                      
 Life Alaska, Incorporated                                                     
 1205 East International Airport Road, Suite 103                               
 Anchorage, Alaska  99518                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 562-5433                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD).                         
                                                                               
 LISA KIRSCH, Legislative Administrative Assistant                             
    to Representative Joe Green and Committee Aide                             
    for the House Judiciary Standing Committee                                 
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 118                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4931                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD).                         
                                                                               
 MATT ANDERSON, Unit Manager                                                   
 Emergency Medical Services Unit                                               
 Community Health and Emergency Medical Services                               
 Division of Public Health                                                     
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 P.O. Box 110616                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-0616                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3027                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided department's position and answered              
                      questions regarding HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD).                  
                                                                               
 MYRNA MAYNARD, Legislative Administrative Assistant                           
    to Senator Drue Pearce                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 518                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4747                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented sponsor statement for CSSB 3(JUD).             
                                                                               
 ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer                                   
 Division of Family and Youth Services                                         
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 McLaughlin Youth Center                                                       
 2600 Providence Drive                                                         
 Anchorage, Alaska  99508                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 562-2285                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided department's position and answered              
                      questions regarding CSSB 3(JUD).                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN                                                   
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 502                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3783                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented sponsor statement for HB 234.                  
                                                                               
 NANCY WELLER, Medical Assistance Administrator                                
 Division of Medical Assistance                                                
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 P.O. Box 110660                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-0660                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-5825                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided department's position and answered              
                      questions regarding HB 234.                              
                                                                               
 PETER NAKAMURA, MD, MPH, Director                                             
 Division of Public Health                                                     
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 P.O. Box 110610                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-0610                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3090                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided department's position and answered              
                      questions regarding HB 234; expressed concern            
                      about health issues.                                     
                                                                               
 DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General                                      
 Legislation and Regulations Section                                           
 Civil Division (Juneau)                                                       
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-0300                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3600                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided department's position and answered              
                      questions regarding HB 234; expressed concern            
                      about constitutional and other issues.                   
                                                                               
 CARLA TIMPONE, Lobbyist                                                       
    for the Alaska Women's Lobby                                               
 211 Fourth Street, Number 108                                                 
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 586-1107                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HB 234.                       
                                                                               
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-63, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 1391                                                                   
                                                                               
 (FIRST PORTION OF TAPE 97-63 IS MORNING MEETING OF SAME DATE)                 
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee              
 meeting to order at 1:06 p.m.  Present at the call to order were              
 Representatives Green, Bunde, Porter and James.  Representatives              
 Berkowitz and Rokeberg arrived at 1:11 p.m. and 1:56 p.m.,                    
 respectively.  The meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage and to            
 Seattle, Washington.                                                          
                                                                               
 SB 106 - NOTARY PUBLIC BOND                                                 
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the first order of business was                 
 Senate Bill No. 106, "An Act relating to the bond required of a               
 notary public."                                                               
                                                                               
 DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Office of the                         
 Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, came forward to                 
 present the bill, saying the court system had requested its                   
 introduction.  Right now, when a person submits an application to             
 be a notary public, the application must first receive a signature            
 from the clerk of the superior court; the clerk then forwards it to           
 the office of the lieutenant governor, which oversees notaries.               
 The clerks only ensure that applications are filled out before                
 signing and forwarding them; it is not something they are uniquely            
 qualified to do.  This bill deletes the requirement for the clerk's           
 signature, allowing someone to send the application directly to the           
 lieutenant governor, which eliminates an extra step.                          
                                                                               
 Number 1515                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES asked whether Mr. Wooliver knew why            
 that signature had been required.                                             
                                                                               
 MR. WOOLIVER said he had checked; it had been a requirement since             
 statehood.  At that time, the court performed other duties,                   
 including work related to passports.  However, Mr. Wooliver had               
 been unable to find any reason why this specifically went through             
 a court clerk.  He noted that other types of bonds must be                    
 submitted to various agencies that oversee the activities, none of            
 which go through the court system.  He said the reason this came up           
 was that the clerk of court in Anchorage was signing these one day            
 and wondering why it was done, as it slows the process and seems to           
 serve no purpose.                                                             
                                                                               
 Number 1571                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised that she had been a notary previously.           
 She said there were two ways to execute an official bond.  One was            
 to buy a bond from an insurance company and the other was for a               
 person to put up his or her own bond that guaranteed possession of            
 the personal means to back it up.  She asked whether the ability to           
 put up one's own bond might relate to approval by the clerk of the            
 court.                                                                        
                                                                               
 MR. WOOLIVER explained that the clerk does not actually check any             
 of those bonds.  He referred to the handbook and said it specifies            
 that currently, a person cannot be his or her own surety.                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES acknowledged that it may have changed.                   
                                                                               
 MR. WOOLIVER concurred and said he was not sure.  He did know that            
 when clerks looked at the applications, they did not look to see              
 whether or not an applicant actually had the bond.  He explained,             
 "Somebody else can act as a surety for you.  They just put their              
 name down; they say they have assets worth $1,000 and they're                 
 willing to put them up.  We don't check that.  All we do is make              
 sure the form is filled out - all the blanks are filled in - and we           
 put a signature on it."                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 1685                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered whether there was some tie with statehood             
 that had long since disappeared.                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that this is the kind of bill she              
 likes, as it repeals a duty that is no longer necessary.  She said            
 the legislature should applaud the court for bringing it forward.             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to move SB 106 from                    
 committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.             
 There being no objection, SB 106 was moved from the House Judiciary           
 Standing Committee.                                                           
                                                                               
 CSSB 112(JUD) - MARRIAGE LICENSING FUNCTIONS                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next order of business was CS for                
 Senate Bill No. 112(JUD), "An Act relating to marriage licenses;              
 and transferring responsibility for marriage licensing from                   
 judicial officers to the state registrar of vital statistics."                
                                                                               
 Number 1773                                                                   
                                                                               
 DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Office of the                         
 Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, presented CSSB
 112(JUD).  The court system had asked that this bill be introduced;           
 it is part of a plan to move away from the court system some                  
 functions that are not judicial.  He advised that the bill was                
 jointly written with the registrar of Vital Statistics; that agency           
 is taking over vital statistics duties from the court system.  The            
 court has already transferred most vital statistics functions to              
 that agency, as well as the personnel that go along with those                
 duties.  However, transferring the marriage license function must             
 be done by statute because under the statute, judges issue marriage           
 licenses.  This bill allows Vital Statistics to issue marriage                
 licenses.                                                                     
                                                                               
 MR. WOOLIVER explained that in most courts, as a matter of                    
 practicality, court employees will still be issuing the marriage              
 licenses.  However, they will do so as the local registrars for               
 Vital Statistics.  But in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, there              
 are Vital Statistics offices that will issue marriage licenses.               
                                                                               
 Number 1868                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked whether this makes it more               
 difficult to obtain a license.                                                
                                                                               
 MR. WOOLIVER said it should make it easier in Anchorage, Fairbanks            
 and Juneau, at least, because there will be one location to obtain            
 the license and record it.  Currently, a person must go to the                
 court to obtain a marriage license and to Vital Statistics to                 
 record it.  Elsewhere, it would remain the same; the local                    
 magistrate or clerk of court would perform the function, but under            
 the auspices of Vital Statistics rather than as a judicial                    
 function.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 1922                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSSB 112(JUD) from                 
 committee with individual recommendations.  There being no                    
 objection, CSSB 112(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary                   
 Standing Committee.                                                           
                                                                               
 CSSSSB 38(JUD) - ANATOMICAL GIFTS, LIVING WILLS & DNR ORDER                 
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next order of business was CS for                
 Sponsor Substitute for Senate Bill No. 38(JUD), "An Act relating to           
 anatomical gifts, living wills, and do not resuscitate orders."               
                                                                               
 Number 2010                                                                   
                                                                               
 JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor,                   
 presented the sponsor statement.  He advised that there was a                 
 committee substitute, which he offered to explain after presenting            
 the gist of the bill.                                                         
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE said the bill clarifies the existing statute dealing              
 with living wills; it also adds a provision by which those who                
 execute a living will can choose to become an organ donor or tissue           
 donor.  By adding this provision to the statutory language of a               
 living will, loved ones and health care professionals would be                
 fully informed of the wishes of family members and patients.  Mr.             
 Ambrose pointed out that we live in a technological age in which              
 the need for tissue and organ donation is much greater than the               
 supply.  While it is not a legitimate function of government to               
 dictate whether a person should become an organ or tissue donor, it           
 is wise to facilitate the process.                                            
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE explained that the bill would also instruct the                   
 Division of Motor Vehicles to indicate on a driver's license not              
 only that the bearer had elected to become an organ donor but also            
 that the bearer had a living will.  Other than nominal expenses,              
 the legislation should cost little to enforce and may become                  
 invaluable if it increases Alaskans' participation in organ and               
 tissue donor programs.                                                        
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE advised that they had contacted the Center for                    
 Transplant Services at the University of Washington hospital to               
 determine the scope of transplants involving Alaskans.  Since 1989,           
 19 Alaskans have received (indisc.--papers over microphone)                   
 transplants through that facility.  Twelve have received liver                
 transplants, and one received both a kidney and a pancreas.  As of            
 January 24th of this year, that one facility had a wait-list of 20            
 Alaskans needing kidney transplants, 11 seeking donated livers and            
 one waiting for a donated pancreas.  The United Network for Organ             
 Sharing, the national clearinghouse, had 68 Alaskans on their wait-           
 list.  Since 1988, that same organization documented 207 Alaskans             
 who have received donor organs.  Mr. Ambrose offered to address the           
 committee substitute.                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to accept the committee                    
 substitute, version 0-LS0183\L, Bannister, 4/4/97, as a work draft.           
 There being no objection, that version was before the committee.              
                                                                               
 Number 2253                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked:  If this is enacted and a person is somewhere           
 else in the state or in another state, how would the organs get to            
 where they need to be?                                                        
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE suggested that a representative from Life Alaska                  
 Transplant, Incorporated, explain how that happens.                           
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-64, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0006                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE said he understands there is reciprocity with some                
 states; they have been asked to look at that larger issue for                 
 possible future legislation.  Right now, the basic problem is that            
 two separate statutes contain provisions that should relate to each           
 other but do not.  The bill attempts to correct this.  Mr. Ambrose            
 said they have worked with Department of Health and Social Services           
 personnel, especially those providing emergency medical technician            
 (EMT) services, for whom this becomes critical.                               
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE referred to page 4 of the proposed committee substitute           
 and said there is an inherent conflict in this process.  Most                 
 people fill out a living will to inform health care providers that            
 they do not want to be resuscitated in certain situations, and that           
 is a living will's generally accepted purpose.  However, an organ             
 donation for transplant must occur almost immediately after death.            
 Therefore, a terminal patient who wants to be an organ donor but              
 who has a "do not resuscitate" (DNR) order presents a conflict.               
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE read the new language on page 4, beginning at line 6,             
 and indicated this provision in the living will addresses the                 
 problem.  Referring to line 8, he said the phrase "hospital                   
 setting" is there because if a person is in a medical setting,                
 these evaluations can take place.  He noted that a valid DNR order            
 is issued by a doctor; it is not something the individual fills               
 out.  He explained, "There are folks who have certain conditions,             
 and if they're involved in an accident, for instance, there is                
 notification on their driver's license that the doctor has issued             
 a `do not resuscitate' order.  We don't want to put our EMTs in a             
 situation that they have to disregard that, okay?  So we want that            
 to happen in the hospital setting."                                           
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE mentioned the language relating to 71 years of age and            
 deferred to the representative from Life Alaska Transplant,                   
 Incorporated, to explain where that came from.  He commented, "That           
 worked itself in during some consultation between the organ donor             
 groups and the drafting attorney."                                            
                                                                               
 Number 0288                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE referred to page 6, beginning at line 14, and                     
 explained, "We reiterate the provision as far as the hospital                 
 setting, and this is for the protection of the EMTs.  The rest of             
 that, through page 8 at line 11, is language that basically                   
 involves the revocation of `do not resuscitate' orders and things             
 that apply to EMTs; and there is someone from the division that can           
 walk you through that."                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE referred to page 6, beginning at line 27 and continuing           
 to page 7.  He said the Department of Law recommends deletion of              
 subsections (e)(2) and (e)(4); the sponsor agrees.  Mr. Ambrose               
 advised that those two subsections have to do with guardians and              
 powers of attorney.                                                           
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE reported that the remaining language in the proposed              
 committee substitute, beginning with Section 16, is from the                  
 original bill.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 0392                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether by deleting subsections (e)(2) and               
 (e)(4), guardianship of an individual may take precedence over the            
 subsequent signing of an organ donation form or living will.  He              
 asked what the priorities are for these various documents.                    
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE replied that the way this provision reads, a physician            
 may not revoke a DNR order at the request of a person who did not             
 ask for it in the first place.                                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN posed a scenario where a person is mentally                    
 incapacitated but has organs from the neck down that function fine.           
 He asked whether there is a potential for conflict.                           
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE offered to call someone from the Department of Law to             
 explain the recommendation.                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said he would appreciate that.  He asked Karyn                 
 Denton whether she had information to add to the discussion.                  
                                                                               
 Number 0551                                                                   
                                                                               
 KARYN DENTON, Associate Director, LifeCenter Northwest, testified             
 via teleconference from Seattle, Washington.  She acknowledged that           
 she had heard the conversation and stated, "But it seems to be more           
 an order of priority in terms of the consent processes related to             
 the living will part, rather than the actual part that we                     
 (indisc.), an individual being an organ donor."                               
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said that earlier, a question had been asked about             
 what happens if someone is in a less-than-desirable setting, rather           
 than in a hospital where the organ can be easily extracted and                
 preserved until use.  He asked whether there is a precedent or                
 something in the living will that would say, for example, that                
 costs would be paid for out of the deceased person's estate or by             
 the state.                                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. DENTON replied, "No, absolutely not."  She explained that when            
 a patient is found to be suitable for a solid organ donation and              
 has indicated that is their wish, those costs are borne by the                
 organ recovery process and system.  There is no charge to the                 
 family's estate nor to the state where the deceased resided.  To              
 her knowledge, in 15 years of organ recovery within their service             
 area, that had never been a problem.                                          
                                                                               
 Number 0670                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Denton to explain the provision            
 regarding 71 years of age.                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. DENTON said the age criteria for solid organs ranges from zero            
 to 70 years, although they have evaluated patients beyond that.               
 There seems to be concern about using the standard zero-to-70                 
 warning because of the question of what to do if a person is closer           
 to 71 years of age than 70.  As she recalled it, the recommendation           
 was made to her organization to simply raise the upper age limit to           
 71 years so that 70-to-71-year-old individuals are included.  She             
 stated, "That age, I would say, encompasses the most likelihood of            
 the older individual who ..., because of the criteria used to                 
 evaluate organs, ... would be found to be a suitable organ                    
 transplant candidate."  She deferred to the director of LifeCenter            
 Northwest to address that.                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0757                                                                   
                                                                               
 EDWARD HUPPMAN, JR., Executive Director, LifeCenter Northwest,                
 testified via teleconference from Seattle, Washington.  He stated             
 that the age criteria was a concern of someone from Life Alaska               
 Transplant, Incorporated.  Noting that the industry standard is               
 around age 70, he said an unlimited age criteria would create more            
 confusion for, and an excess burden on, EMTs in the field who found           
 a DNR order and an organ donation identification for someone beyond           
 what is considered a normal age for organ donation.  They want to             
 avoid having the bill become a major problem for emergency medical            
 service (EMS) personnel with regard to people beyond that age                 
 limit, whom his organization would not consider organ donors.                 
                                                                               
 Number 0823                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded, "You put me in an awkward                 
 position, because I don't want to tell people over the age of 70              
 that their bodies have little value.  It seemed to me that it's               
 more of a policy question for you to determine, since you're the              
 folks who want the organs."  He stated that he would rather not put           
 the 71-year-old limit in the legislation.  He believes that should            
 be up to individual evaluation.                                               
                                                                               
 MR. HUPPMAN replied, "Then we totally agree.  I have no problem               
 with having that age criteria removed."                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0865                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that in other committees where he              
 had served, there had been extensive discussions about organ and              
 tissue donation.  In every case, it had been strongly affirmed that           
 this was at the expense of the recipient, not the donor.  As to the           
 71-year-old limit, he acknowledged the dilemma for an EMT of a "do            
 not resuscitate" order for an organ donor; if EMTs were uncertain             
 how to proceed, the age criteria would at least indicate that the             
 person was unlikely to be an organ donor and, therefore, the EMTs             
 could abide by the DNR directive.  He asked:  Are you aware of                
 anyone over the age of 71 having been an organ donor?                         
                                                                               
 MR. HUPPMAN replied that there are very few occasions where that              
 has happened.  He knew of one or two where, because of demand for             
 organs, they had extended their criteria for considering people               
 beyond age 70.  However, that is only in the rarest of instances.             
 They try to evaluate an organ more from a physiological standpoint            
 than a chronological one.  He said they have had to put a qualifier           
 somewhere, and age 70 seems to be the "high-end limit" for                    
 consideration.  He advised that those people are evaluated very,              
 very carefully.                                                               
                                                                               
 Number 0996                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned Mr. Huppman's answer to Representative              
 Berkowitz indicating he had no problem with removing the 71-year              
 restriction.  He noted that Mr. Huppman had just mentioned having             
 to put some age limit in there.                                               
                                                                               
 MR. HUPPMAN replied, "That was more internally."                              
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "`Internally' saying that you probably                  
 wouldn't look at someone over 70, but there isn't a reason that               
 they couldn't have this type of an arrangement?"                              
                                                                               
 MR. HUPPMAN replied, "That's correct."                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that they were looking at a fairly                 
 narrow segment of people who both have a DNR order and a wish to              
 donate organs.  There would be no dilemma for an EMT if someone had           
 no DNR order, for example.                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 1083                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she had carried a card for 30 or 40 years           
 that says she will donate her eyes or corneas to the Lions eye                
 bank.  Noting that it will not be long before she is 70, she asked            
 whether she should stop carrying that card.                                   
                                                                               
 MR. HUPPMAN replied, "No, absolutely not."  He said tissue and eye            
 donation have different criteria, and he suggested a representative           
 of Life Alaska, Incorporated, address that.  Mr. Huppman said the             
 age-70 cut-off applies to solid organs.  In contrast, eye donation            
 has an unlimited age criteria, if not for transplant purposes, then           
 definitely for eye research.                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 1161                                                                   
                                                                               
 JENS SAAKVITNE, Director, Life Alaska, Incorporated, testified via            
 teleconference from Anchorage.  He agreed that while there are                
 specific criteria as far as an upper age of 70 for organ donation,            
 there is almost no upper age limit for tissue donation.  He stated,           
 "We have had donors in their 90s where tissue was used for                    
 transplants; for research donation, there's absolutely no upper               
 age.  But for tissue donation, we also have up to 24 hours after              
 the heart stops."                                                             
                                                                               
 MR. SAAKVITNE continued, "The reason for both the hospital setting            
 and, to an extent, the inclusion of the under-age-71 criteria is              
 that the EMS is faced in the field with a very short period of                
 time.  When they come upon a `non-heart-beating' patient or someone           
 who's about to die [and] they find a DNR card and an organ donor              
 card, what do you do?  What is the best way to support this                   
 person's wishes?"                                                             
                                                                               
 MR. SAAKVITNE noted that most people who carry DNR cards tend to be           
 older and may have a terminal illness that will pretty much rule              
 out organ donation.  Medical personnel do not want to do a                    
 disservice to a family by needlessly resuscitating patients,                  
 generating all sorts of costs and a lot of heartache.  Mr.                    
 Saakvitne stated, "So, we try and come up with criteria such as the           
 `in a hospital setting,' number one, and number two, some type of             
 age criteria that says people that are older than this age, let's             
 not even go ahead and try to extend this resuscitation period, to             
 make it simpler."                                                             
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to page 6, lines 27 through 29, and page 7,           
 lines 1 through 4.  He asked Lisa Kirsch to discuss the pros and              
 cons of dropping those two subsections, (e)(2) and (e)(4).                    
                                                                               
 Number 1287                                                                   
                                                                               
 LISA KIRSCH, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative           
 Joe Green and Committee Aide for the House Judiciary Standing                 
 Committee, advised that she had spoken with someone from the                  
 Department of Law regarding those two deletions.  Subsection (e),             
 defines when a DNR order can be revoked.  The physician cannot                
 revoke the order unless the individual himself or herself does so.            
 However, if the individual is unconscious, for example, it can also           
 be revoked by a parent; a guardian appointed under AS 13.26.116; a            
 person to whom that decision has been communicated from the                   
 individual; or a person who has power of attorney for the                     
 individual.                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. KIRSCH referred to subsection (e)(2) and explained that                   
 although AS 13.26.116 puts guardianship orders into effect, it does           
 not give an appointed guardian the power to put a "do not                     
 resuscitate" order into effect.  The concern of the Department of             
 Law is that by giving guardians the power to take such orders out             
 of effect, it may imply they also have the power to put them into             
 effect.  They do not want to create any ambiguity as to whether               
 guardians or persons with power of attorney have those powers of              
 life and death over their wards or over persons for whom they hold            
 power of attorney.                                                            
                                                                               
 Number 1440                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested two categories were missing from           
 that list:  the spouse and the child.  He believes spouses and                
 children should be allowed the opportunity to make that call.                 
                                                                               
 MS. KIRSCH asked whether he was talking about revoking a "do not              
 resuscitate" order, as this would be for a person who had filled              
 out such an order.  She indicated he may be talking about a                   
 situation where the spouse or child had been given that power,                
 since that is the way the others are written.                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded, "At the very least, I think               
 it's something that people want to talk about, or I think maybe we            
 should talk about."                                                           
                                                                               
 MS. KIRSCH suggested in that context, perhaps they should be                  
 talking about amendments to Title 13, rather than this bill, which            
 focuses more on organ donation.  She deferred to the sponsor for a            
 response, then commented that she does not believe the intent is to           
 create any new law.  She said those deletions are to focus on organ           
 donation and avoid changing existing law on guardianships or                  
 guardianship-like circumstances where a concerned person and                  
 someone incapacitated are involved.                                           
                                                                               
 Number 1532                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER commented on the remaining two                    
 exceptions under subsection (e) and suggested, "I don't think it              
 would be changing much if we said that a guardian, spouse or child            
 who had been given that authority specifically, by the person who             
 filled it out, would have the authority to pull it.  But, I mean,             
 you're defeating the whole purpose of it if you say that anyone               
 else can change my mind."                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 1579                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE concurred, asking what would be the point of             
 a DNR order if anybody could revoke it.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 1615                                                                   
                                                                               
 MATT ANDERSON, Unit Manager, Emergency Medical Services Unit,                 
 Community Health and Emergency Medical Services, Division of Public           
 Health, Department of Health and Social Services, came forward to             
 testify, expressing the department's support of the bill as                   
 written.  He stated, "We believe that SB 38 will make it much                 
 easier for health care workers to identify individuals who have               
 living wills and to those who will be able to identify patients who           
 ... wish to donate organs and issues.  We hope this will ensure               
 that we are able to comply more fully with the patients' wishes               
 regarding medical care, anatomical gifts, and that that, in turn,             
 will increase the availability of organs and tissues available for            
 donation."                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. ANDERSON continued, "In addition, this bill clarifies how `do             
 not resuscitate' orders can be revoked, something which was not               
 clear in existing state statute and is an issue that is extremely             
 important for pre-hospital emergency care workers."  He expressed             
 appreciation to the sponsor for his willingness to allow the                  
 department to make suggestions to improve the bill as it went                 
 through the process.  He offered to answer questions.                         
                                                                               
 Number 1680                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to discussion of whether a guardian or                
 person holding a power attorney should have authority to revoke a             
 "do not resuscitate" order.  He asked Ms. Denton whether Washington           
 or other states have a similar provision.                                     
                                                                               
 MS. DENTON replied, "Not that I'm aware of."                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to amend the proposed committee           
 substitute by deleting subsections (e)(2) and (e)(4), found at page           
 6, lines 27 through 29, and page 7, lines 1 through 4.                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection.  There being            
 none, the amendment was adopted.                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that the other subsections would be                
 renumbered accordingly.                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 1760                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to remove the 71-year                  
 restriction.  He said it seemed to be a little arbitrary.  In                 
 addition, he did not feel it was right to single out "people who              
 have reached that exalted stage."                                             
                                                                               
 Number 1775                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. AMBROSE advised that the sponsor would have no objection so               
 long as the language "in a hospital setting" remains; that                    
 evaluation could be made in the hospital.  He explained, "We just             
 don't want it to be in a situation where it's in the field and the            
 folks that provide these wonderful responses in the field have to             
 be making these choices."                                                     
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that the age reference occurs in at least two            
 places.  He asked, "Would your amendment be to actually find them             
 or just wherever that restriction is, ... it would be removed but             
 not ... the `hospital setting' portion of that."                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied, "What you said, Mr. Chairman."              
                                                                               
 Number 1808                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection to that                  
 concept.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested the 71-year age would remain for               
 nonmedical settings, such as in the field for EMTs.                           
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN concurred.                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said in that case, he had no objection.                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was further objection.  Hearing            
 none, he advised that the conceptual amendment was adopted.                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion that the proposed committee               
 substitute, as amended, be moved from committee with individual               
 recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.  There being no            
 objection, HCS CSSSSB 38(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary              
 Standing Committee.                                                           
                                                                               
 SB 3 - MINOR'S CURFEW VIOLATIONS                                            
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business was CS for                 
 Senate Bill No. 3(JUD), "An Act authorizing prosecution and trial             
 in the district court of municipal curfew violations, and providing           
 for punishment of minors upon conviction for violation of a curfew            
 ordinance."                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 1904                                                                   
                                                                               
 MYRNA MAYNARD, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Drue           
 Pearce, came forward to present CSSB 3(JUD) on behalf of the                  
 sponsor.  The bill had been introduced in response to an article in           
 the Anchorage newspaper relating to Juneau.  The City and Borough             
 of Juneau had wanted to institute a curfew ordinance but was unable           
 to do so because juvenile curfew cases are heard by the Division of           
 Family and Youth Services (DFYS) and then go to the superior court.           
 Ms. Maynard said curfew violations were low on the agenda for DFYS            
 and did not get heard.  Kids knew that even if they were cited for            
 a curfew violation, nothing would happen to them.  Thus, this bill            
 was introduced.                                                               
                                                                               
 MS. MAYNARD noted that the bill has the support of the Municipality           
 of Anchorage, the City and Borough of Juneau, the mayor's task                
 force on youth in Juneau and the Alaska Peace Officers Association.           
 She advised that there was a fiscal note from the court system for            
 $24,000.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed concern that the bill may impede           
 a municipality's ability to choose how to proceed.                            
                                                                               
 MS. MAYNARD responded, "No, it will have no effect. ... If you have           
 a youth court or some other system in place, this does not affect             
 it at all."                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked:  If a municipality chose to proceed           
 under the juvenile rules, would they be precluded from doing that?            
                                                                               
 MS. MAYNARD replied, "No."                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that alleviated his concern.                    
                                                                               
 MS. MAYNARD reported that Judge Peter Froehlich of the Alaska                 
 District Court in Juneau has a Friday afternoon juvenile court                
 where he hears violations relating to tobacco, firearms, alcohol              
 and so forth.  "And he loves this and wants to put it in place,               
 because they have a real problem, evidently, here in Juneau," she             
 stated.  "And he doesn't think the fiscal impact is going to be               
 great because probably 75 percent of the kids they see already,               
 under the alcohol and those other violations, would also be the               
 curfew [violators]."                                                          
                                                                               
 MS. MAYNARD said at the request of Assemblyman Murdy from                     
 Anchorage, they put in the ability to have community work in lieu             
 of a fine.  She explained, "We couldn't mandate that because that's           
 putting them into servitude, and then they would be entitled to a             
 trial by jury; so, we've made it that the violator can choose to do           
 community work if they can't pay the fine.  And perhaps some                  
 parents who choose not to pay the fine will encourage their                   
 children to choose community work because it will have more effect            
 on them, and they may think twice before they violate the curfew              
 again.  At least, that's our hope."                                           
                                                                               
 Number 2081                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated he had discussed this with "some           
 of the folks at APD" who were doing truancy work; they believe that           
 this is a highly effective way of doing community-based policing              
 and that it has a big impact on reducing overall crime rates.                 
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the sponsor had received comments                
 about the state's taking action on behalf of municipalities.                  
                                                                               
 MS. MAYNARD said no, although a parent had come to one meeting to             
 voice support, hoping juveniles will stop after the first or second           
 violation.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 2132                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised that he was trying to find in the               
 bill where there is an option on how to deal with a violation, such           
 as sending the case to a youth court.                                         
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN called an at-ease.  He called the meeting back to              
 order at 2:00 p.m.                                                            
                                                                               
 Number 2207                                                                   
                                                                               
 ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, Division of Family and           
 Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services, came                
 forward to testify.  One concern the department has about the bill            
 is that although it appears to be a civil infraction to violate a             
 curfew or tobacco ordinance, in practice a citation is issued and             
 if the young person fails to appear in district court in response             
 to that citation summons, the court issues a "failure to appear"              
 warrant.                                                                      
                                                                               
 MR. BUTTCANE explained that although that is not a problem in most            
 of Alaska, 20 to 30 percent of the detention population at the                
 Johnson Youth Center in Juneau are young people who have failed to            
 appear in district court for possession of tobacco or minor-                  
 consuming-alcohol violations.  He stated, "And this bill, although            
 it doesn't directly cause young people to be detained in our youth            
 facilities or to fall into the juvenile system, kind of by default,           
 because they are in violation of this `failure to appear' order and           
 then subject to contempt issues, they're clogging up our detention            
 facilities."                                                                  
                                                                               
 MR. BUTTCANE advised that Margot Knuth had been unable to attend              
 this hearing but could speak more to the legalities.  He explained,           
 "We would like to see some provision that would ensure that it                
 stays in a civil realm.  In terms of the options available to                 
 municipalities, I know Anchorage did go to a hearing officer for              
 these cases.  They had something in the neighborhood of 1,100 or              
 1,200 curfew violations, I believe, once they instituted the                  
 ordinance in the Municipality of Anchorage.  And even if a small              
 portion of them started ending up in our detention facility in                
 Anchorage, the system would grind to a halt."  He said they did not           
 need to put people who smoke tobacco in "concrete and cinder                  
 block."                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 2301                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned the difference between civil and           
 criminal contempt.  He said most failures to appear are outgrowths            
 of criminal contempt charges.  He suggested if there were a way of            
 proceeding for civil contempt, even though it may subject someone             
 to a warrant and arrest, it would not have the same criminal                  
 consequences as a criminal contempt charge would.  He said he                 
 wished someone were present who could address that.                           
                                                                               
 MR. BUTTCANE replied that he could ask the Department of Law to               
 respond.  He stated, "I do know here in Juneau there were 41                  
 detention admissions at the Johnson Youth Center from the district            
 court for those.  So, whatever those nuances are, we are ending up            
 with people detained at our youth facility for failure to appear on           
 these issues."                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 2345                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what kind of statistics Mr. Buttcane had           
 regarding the admissions to the Juneau youth facility.  She asked             
 how long people were detained and what has happened to them                   
 following that.                                                               
                                                                               
 MR. BUTTCANE replied that he did not have specific numbers broken             
 down in that way, although he believed they could be obtained.                
 "They are identifiable cases, and we could summarize what they look           
 like," he added.                                                              
                                                                               
 Number 2366                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested they meet about that later.  She               
 said she has always been a proponent of the reform school concept,            
 mostly because many of her foster kids came from that concept.  She           
 noted that many offenders are not "super-bad" but will not mind               
 their parents, who have lost control of them.  She wanted to know             
 whether that was the last they heard from kids put in that system             
 for minor infractions or whether their behavior worsened because of           
 the influence of others in the system whose misbehavior was more              
 serious.                                                                      
                                                                               
 MR. BUTTCANE indicated the department could provide that                      
 information.                                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 2412                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE mentioned "turnstile jumping" in New York and            
 suggested that youth who violated curfew may in fact have committed           
 more serious offenses as well.  He agreed to not wanting to clog              
 the "cinder block and bars" with simple curfew violations.                    
 However, failure to appear in court is a much more serious offense            
 than a curfew violation.  He concurred with exploring the idea of             
 channeling that down a civil contempt route, so that there would be           
 increased penalties for being a scofflaw.  He said without that,              
 there might as well be no curfew.                                             
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-64, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0006                                                                   
                                                                               
 [Begins mid-speech]                                                           
                                                                               
 MR. BUTTCANE said a truly civil track still provides the                      
 consequence for noncompliance with some social order without the              
 expense of detention.  He advised that he would ask department                
 employees to look into that and clarify it.                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that except for the court's fiscal note, the             
 others were zero fiscal notes.  He asked who would ensure that the            
 youth do what they are supposed to do.                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0030                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. MAYNARD replied, "I assume the court system."                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said normally, fines go through the court            
 clerk, who keeps track of those.                                              
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said his question related to Section 6 and the                 
 ability to do community work.                                                 
                                                                               
 MS. MAYNARD responded, "Actually, some judges already assign                  
 community work, although evidently you can't mandate it.  But some            
 of them do.  Judge Froehlich here in Juneau has assigned community            
 work to some kids, and they find that those kids pay more attention           
 than if ... some parent pays a $250 fine."                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "But doesn't it require somebody to be with             
 the person or persons that are doing community work?"                         
                                                                               
 MS. MAYNARD said she did not know.                                            
                                                                               
 Number 0070                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained, "Usually what happens is, if              
 there is court-ordered community work service, it's done through              
 the ASAP program, and ASAP monitors the amount of work that's done.           
 So, if someone has an eight-hour work requirement, they would check           
 in with ASAP; ASAP would send them off to do a job; there would be            
 some sort of supervision; and they would come back and their eight            
 hours would be checked off.  ASAP would send something back to the            
 court, and the court would know that the work had been completed.             
 ... That's the norm, and I would imagine that this program                    
 envisions expanding that supervision to tribal councils and some of           
 the other entities that are designated, some kind of supervision."            
                                                                               
 Number 0110                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that the Alcohol Safety Action              
 Program (ASAP) exists only in Anchorage and Fairbanks.  Other                 
 communities approach it differently but have some accountability              
 mechanism.  He referred to the desire not to have a warrant result            
 from failure to appear and asked:  Is the parent notified at the              
 time that the original curfew violation citation is issued?                   
                                                                               
 MS. MAYNARD replied, "Under this, the parent has to come to the               
 court with the child."                                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked:  Why not change that to an order to              
 show cause against the parent?  He asked whether this kind of                 
 offense could go through a magistrate's office if that was the only           
 option.  He further asked whether "district court" included a                 
 magistrate.                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. BUTTCANE responded, "That's the way we understand the intent of           
 this."                                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0158                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to Representative Porter's                  
 suggestion about an order to show cause.  He said although he was             
 not taking a position because he had not yet thought it through,              
 there has been much discussion about vicarious liability, making              
 parents responsible for children.  To his knowledge, that had been            
 extensively litigated.  He suggested before they required an order            
 to show cause, they should explore that.                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that over the last four or five               
 years, the legislature has passed several statutes that go towards            
 recognizing parental responsibility and increasing parents'                   
 financial responsibility for property damage by children.  He does            
 not believe there is a constitutional issue when the parent is                
 properly put on notice.  He pointed out that an order to show cause           
 is not a finding.  He suggested if it is required that the parent             
 be notified of the original citation, in effect it is the parent              
 who fails to come to court, not the child.                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0226                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "This says the parent, guardian or legal                 
 custodian."  He asked:  If it were under the DFYS, would someone              
 from that agency be there during the sentencing?                              
                                                                               
 MS. MAYNARD replied, "Or the foster parent, if they were in a                 
 foster home."                                                                 
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that person would be held accountable            
 as well.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied, "Well, what we're talking about is             
 someone who fails to appear in response to the original citation.             
 And the parent or guardian is notified and asked to appear with the           
 child for that appearance.  And that's made before the scheduled              
 time of the appearance.  So, to me, it is the parent who is saying,           
 `I'm not going to be responsible for showing up here,' not the kid.           
 So, why not, if we're going to take an action because of that                 
 failure to appear, why not take it against the person that's                  
 responsible?"                                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 0296                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said while he was not unsympathetic to that              
 point, having authored the bill that increased financial                      
 responsibility, it also provided a "hammer" to an incorrigible                
 young person who wanted to make life difficult for his or her                 
 parents, if the parents would be in contempt for the young person's           
 failure to appear.                                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that an order to show cause is not            
 a criminal charge; it is a "rather forceful subpoena" that tells              
 them to come before the court to explain why the court should not             
 presume that the failure to appear should be treated seriously.               
                                                                               
 Number 0340                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that increased his comfort level                    
 somewhat.  However, he believed both parent and child should be               
 required to appear for a curfew violation, not the parent alone.              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would presume that would be the                 
 order.                                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0368                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she agreed with Representative Porter on            
 this.  However, either these kids are minors and under parental               
 control or they are not; there must be consistency.  Unless a minor           
 has been emancipated or is under the responsibility of the DFYS,              
 she believes that "anything done to the kids" must include the                
 parents.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 0440                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that they had just passed a              
 juvenile crime bill through committee that said the opposite, that            
 juveniles could be treated as adults.  He said the requirement that           
 parents or guardians be present at all proceedings has to do with             
 the juveniles' ability to knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily            
 waive any rights that attach during a proceeding.  The focus is on            
 the juvenile, with the parent or guardian in the position of                  
 ensuring that the juvenile knows what is going on.  Traditionally,            
 the requirement has not been in recognition of parental rights but            
 rather in recognition of the juvenile's understanding of his or her           
 rights.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0483                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES also referred to the juvenile crime bill.  She           
 said when a minor commits a crime against a person, that is a                 
 different situation; had they kept the parents involved with                  
 earlier transgressions by that child, that might not have occurred.           
 But by the time it happens, public safety is a concern, which is              
 one reason they want to come down harder on those with crimes                 
 against a person.                                                             
                                                                               
 Number 0516                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN called an at-ease at 2:22 p.m.                                 
                                                                               
 [END OF TAPE 97-64]                                                           
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-65, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0006                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN called the meeting back to order at 2:30 p.m.  He              
 asked if there were further questions or comments.  He then                   
 announced he would hold the bill over and check with the Department           
 of Law.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0105                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG apologized for being late and asked            
 whether they had addressed the issue of why only the elderly and              
 disabled were identified for community work.                                  
                                                                               
 MS. MAYNARD responded that it did not mean "only."  In rural                  
 communities, people felt this was where services could be used.               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it seemed restrictive and he had                 
 concerns about it.                                                            
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised that the committee would try to hear the               
 bill again on Monday, April 28.                                               
                                                                               
 HB 234 - ABORTIONS UNDER GENERAL RELIEF PROGRAM                             
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the final item of business was House Bill            
 No. 234, "An Act relating to assistance for abortions under the               
 general relief program; and relating to financial responsibility              
 for the costs of abortions."  Two people had testified during that            
 morning's hearing.                                                            
                                                                               
 Number 0236                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, sponsor of HB 234, offered a more                
 detailed background for the bill than presented that morning.  He             
 said over the years, people have been offended by the public's                
 paying for elective services, especially abortions.  Although there           
 is perhaps less stigma to abortions than previously, people do not            
 feel they should pay for someone's elective procedure.                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said Alaska's laws have been supported by the           
 federal government, which says a male is responsible for a child              
 out of wedlock at least until the age of 18.  He asked:  If males             
 are to be responsible for a child who is born, why should they not            
 be responsible for an abortion, especially when it competes against           
 other medical needs of our society?  Representative Martin stated,            
 "... and in the House, it was about $500,000 we analyze on                    
 abortions that in many cases could be paid for by the male."                  
                                                                               
 Number 0443                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN indicated the legislature had never taken               
 direct action to pay for abortion; it has been an interpretation by           
 the attorney general and the Department of Health and Social                  
 Services.  The idea was that when there was a shortage of federal             
 Medicaid money, the state would pick it up under the general relief           
 medical program.  A number of years ago, a department head had                
 decided to use that money for abortions.  Representative Martin               
 said that offended many people.  While some proposed dropping                 
 medical relief money as a complement to Medicaid funds, he said               
 that is not an answer.  Currently, senior citizens are denied                 
 emergency medical and dental services while elective abortions are            
 covered.  He believes that is a poor way to run a medical                     
 assistance program.                                                           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN referred to an amendment by Representative              
 Rokeberg that was not formally before the committee.  He expressed            
 support for it, saying when he first read it, he had been confused;           
 however, after discussion, he believes it is right on target, as it           
 makes a rapist or person convicted of incest responsible for paying           
 for an abortion.  Representative Martin stated that he opposes                
 abortion, period, and is more opposed to state money being used for           
 elective abortions.  Even more offensive is when a person has been            
 convicted of rape or incest and the state pays the bill.  He said             
 the permanent fund dividend is tapped for many purposes and                   
 Representative Rokeberg's amendment is "very rational."                       
                                                                               
 Number 0680                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN advised that he disagreed with a second                 
 amendment proposed by Representative Rokeberg.  Not yet formally              
 before the committee, that amendment makes the parent or legal                
 guardian of a minor liable for the cost of an abortion.                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN recalled that ten years before, he and other            
 legislators had received phone calls from a mother who was outraged           
 when she received a medical bill for her daughter's abortion; prior           
 to that, she had no idea it had occurred.  Expecting                          
 confidentiality, the daughter had gone through the public health              
 system.  He stated, "So, we did work it out that they would stop              
 charging parents for abortions, especially when they weren't even             
 consulted or involved."                                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said this second amendment touches on the               
 same thing.  Because of the confidentiality issue, he believes it             
 is a conflict of interest to introduce legislation making the                 
 parent responsible.  He discussed personal experience working with            
 kids in boys' clubs and past attitudes towards out-of-wedlock                 
 pregnancy.                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN briefly addressed the fiscal note, which he             
 acknowledged is high at $5.5 million.  He said he disagreed with              
 "the other half" because Medicaid money cannot be used for                    
 abortions.  If anyone pays for it, it should be the male.  He                 
 expressed disappointment that no representative from the Department           
 of Law was present to address legal aspects.                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0845                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what the cost of an abortion usually is.           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN believes abortions cost between $300 and                
 $600.  He advised that especially in Southeast Alaska, the public             
 health service flies women to Tacoma, Washington, to use a clinic             
 there; it is a same-day operation and the travel cost is in                   
 addition to the abortion.                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 0886                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recalled that the legislature had passed a               
 bill the previous year relating to identifying the father in the              
 case of a birth.                                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN agreed.  He stated, "And that's where this              
 comes from.  We're using the same law, Chapter 47, that allows for            
 that on the federal and state ...."                                           
                                                                               
 Number 0911                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that two people make a pregnancy and           
 therefore both should be responsible to decide whether to keep the            
 child and to pay for it.  She noted that it is possible to                    
 determine paternity for a living child and asked:  What do you do             
 with an aborted fetus if the alleged father denies paternity?                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that DNA could still be taken from an           
 aborted fetus, to his knowledge.                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE questioned whether the fiscal note included              
 that testing.  He concurred with Representative James in holding              
 fathers responsible.  He mentioned an Alaskan man who had bragged             
 about fathering 19 children with 11 different women; he suggested             
 there should be higher penalties than taking a permanent fund                 
 dividend.  He also noted that current law says convicted felons do            
 not receive dividends.  He asked for confirmation of that.                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said when he and Representative Rokeberg had            
 discussed it, it was possible the dividend was already covered;               
 however, they had wanted to be explicit.  He mentioned that there             
 is a special account for victims of crime.                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, acknowledging that the amendments were not              
 officially before the committee, named the longer amendment                   
 "Amendment 1" and the shorter one "Amendment 2."  He asked whether            
 Representative Martin would support an amendment that made the                
 parents liable when they had given consent for the abortion.                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied, "I would be flexible there, because            
 ... I think that in a case like this here -- in most cases, and               
 maybe I'm now reminded on the old law where we want to keep it                
 confidential from the parents.  And so now that we've got the                 
 judicial bypass, I still feel uncomfortable in the confidentiality.           
 If a parent were to go ahead, there's nothing wrong with that at              
 all, for the parent to -- and perhaps they may not even want their            
 daughter to get involved in the government aspect of it but just              
 quietly and cheaper do it through private sources."                           
                                                                               
 Number 1160                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said his point was that if someone could not             
 afford the abortion but her parents gave consent, should the                  
 parents not be financially responsible?                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN commented that on a given day, the children             
 of the most wholesome parents could do something out of character.            
 In a case like this, where the child makes money including                    
 permanent fund dividends, perhaps this would curtail activity.                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked:  Given the bill that the legislature           
 is about to pass regarding consent, would that impact this bill as            
 written?  And is there not a need to require confidentiality                  
 between the mother and father of the unborn child?                            
                                                                               
 Number 1380                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied that the mother and father would                
 usually know each other.  He said in Chapter 47, which relates to             
 when the child is born, the mother-to-be is responsible for                   
 disclosing who the father is at the time of birth.  He said through           
 Representative Bettye Davis's law, passed four years ago, that                
 seemed to work.                                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that is voluntary, not required.                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN concurred.                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that when there is an abortion,             
 there is no birth.  He was uncertain how that body of law related             
 to this.  He believes confidentiality should be maintained                    
 regarding the father as well as the mother's parents.  He said                
 apparently Representative Martin does not agree with his theory               
 that there is either a constitutional or legal requirement to                 
 maintain confidentiality as it relates to the father.  He noted               
 that from earlier testimony, many times the father is unknown.                
                                                                               
 Number 1487                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked:  What would happen if the woman did           
 not want to release the father's name?                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN likened it to child support enforcement.                
 Only when applying for Medicaid does it becomes a problem; he did             
 not know the rationale.  If a mother keeps the child, he did not              
 know at what point the state would deny Medicaid or other welfare.            
 He said it is predicated on federal law and asked, "If it's okay              
 under federal law to disclose who the father is, and now state law            
 has been upheld, then why not for the abortion?  And the                      
 confidentiality is right there within the department."                        
                                                                               
 Number 1562                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether Representative Martin                  
 envisioned a situation where the state would compel the woman to              
 disclose the identity of the father.                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said he did not put it beyond the state to              
 compel anything; it has gone way out of bounds for many things, not           
 only for childbirth or abortion.  He said we can always imagine               
 government getting out of control, which is why we have legislators           
 to adjust it.                                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 1598                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that this is an area about which she           
 has long been concerned.  She believes there is equal                         
 responsibility, except in the case of rape or incest.  She had                
 supported trying to identify the father at the time of birth, which           
 she believes is when the father is most vulnerable.  She was not              
 taking a position on this bill until seeing the other consequences.           
 However, she supports the concept of the man paying at least half             
 of the cost.  She specified she was willing to divide it in half,             
 as a joint responsibility.                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN thanked Representative James and said that is           
 his sentiment as well.                                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised that they would lose their quorum shortly.             
 He suggested taking testimony immediately and addressing the two              
 amendments later.                                                             
                                                                               
 NANCY WELLER, Medical Assistance Administrator, Division of Medical           
 Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services, came forward            
 to testify.  Referring to Section 3 of the bill, she said it                  
 eliminates the ability of the department to fund abortions for low-           
 income women by placing abortions and related services first on the           
 priority list in AS 47.25.205.  Since 1986, due to budget                     
 reductions relating to the general relief medical program, the                
 department has not had sufficient financial resources to fund the             
 first seven items on the existing list.                                       
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER advised that the accompanying fiscal note, which she had           
 prepared, assumes that 80 percent of the number of women currently            
 receiving abortions would bear the children, with both mothers and            
 children having medical costs paid for by the state through the               
 Medicaid program.                                                             
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER said other sections of the bill, related to financial              
 responsibility and garnishment of permanent fund dividend checks to           
 recoup the costs of abortion, would not come into effect because              
 Section 3 eliminates the ability of the department to fund                    
 abortions.                                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER advised that the department also has a number of                   
 administrative problems with sections relating to garnishment of              
 the permanent fund dividends and tracking the recipients' estates.            
 She explained, "We do not track people's estates and go after their           
 estates in order to recoup costs.  We would not have the ability to           
 force a putative father to come in for DNA testing in order to                
 determine whether they would be the father of the unborn child.               
 Fetal DNA testing can be done by a laboratory in the state; it                
 would cost $975 plus transportation for the parties; we would have            
 to set up an administrative procedure for getting the fetal tissue            
 from the facilities.  Many abortions are done outside of the state,           
 so it would be a significant administrative `adventure' dealing               
 with setting up these procedures."                                            
                                                                               
 Number 1857                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "You said that we're funding many abortions             
 now that are done outside the state?"                                         
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER said yes, particularly in Southeast Alaska, from which             
 women go to Seattle.                                                          
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what the relative cost would be for someone to           
 go to Seattle rather than have it done in Juneau.                             
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER said she believes people in Southeast Alaska go south              
 because there are no facilities in Juneau.  She explained that                
 there are many different medical procedures, some related to                  
 miscarriages and other "birthing disasters."  The range of payments           
 for these procedures is $365 to $900.  When the department pays for           
 services out of state, they pay the Medicaid rate for the state               
 where the service is provided; those rates are significantly less             
 than the fee schedule in Alaska.                                              
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the department pays for                          
 transportation.                                                               
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER said yes.  Last year, they paid for 737 abortions at a             
 cost of $487,000, of which $300,000 was directly related to the               
 abortions.  The remainder was related to transportation and other             
 services.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 1940                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that averaged $500 each.  He asked about             
 the assumption that 80 percent of the women now receiving abortions           
 would deliver instead.  He also asked whether most abortions paid             
 for by the state are for lower-income people.                                 
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER said the state only pays for low-income people.                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether Ms. Weller was indicating               
 that 80 percent of Medicaid-covered women have abortions.                     
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER replied, "No, I'm saying that in preparing the fiscal              
 note for the bill, the way I came up with this cost is that I was             
 assuming that of the people who receive an abortion every year, 80            
 percent of those people would not have an abortion through their              
 own means or some other means and would become Medicaid-eligible,             
 and that the Medicaid program would pay for the costs of the birth            
 and for the child, because children receive automatic Medicaid                
 eligibility for the first year of life when their mother is on                
 Medicaid."                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for approximately how many births or abortions           
 the state would expect difficulty in trying to find a father who is           
 not voluntarily assuming responsibility.                                      
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER explained that for Medicaid and public assistance                  
 programs, they operate under federal rules that require the woman             
 to identify the father of the child in order to receive public                
 assistance, cash assistance or Medicaid.  However, there are                  
 exceptions, such as when a woman fears for her life or there is               
 abuse.                                                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that is for a small percentage.                  
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER said although she would assume that, she did not know.             
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested finding the father really is not the major           
 problem in most cases.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 2085                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER responded, "I don't know what percentage would be in               
 disagreement, because ... when someone applies for cash assistance,           
 the state has an obligation to go and get a child support order.              
 Child support enforcement is required to issue an administrative              
 order for child support for the children whose mothers are                    
 receiving assistance, and then the state and the federal government           
 share the child support funds that are collected on behalf of the             
 children that are on assistance, in order to recoup the amount of             
 money that we're paying for assistance."                                      
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN stated his understanding that it is a requirement to           
 determine the father.                                                         
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER affirmed that it is a requirement, which is there                  
 because the state obtains a child support order against the father            
 who is not supporting a child on assistance.  The department had              
 never tried to recoup funds for abortions.                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether exceptions to the required              
 identification of the father are examined on a case-by-case basis.            
 He further asked whether there is a statutory or regulatory                   
 provision for those exceptions.                                               
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER answered that it is a federal law, with specific                   
 criteria.  If the woman can assert that there is danger to her life           
 or her children because of some abusive situation, that exception             
 applies; she is not required to prove it.                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Weller provide the                 
 committee with those references.  He restated his desire that the             
 legislation not breach that confidentiality.                                  
                                                                               
 Number 2185                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER emphasized that Section 3 would eliminate the ability of           
 the department to pay for abortions, so that the other sections in            
 the bill related to responsibility and garnishment of the permanent           
 fund dividend would become moot.                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that the definitions of abortion            
 under Section 7, found on page 4, would allow them to perform some            
 procedures.                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER responded, "We are allowed under the Medicaid program,             
 using state and federal funds, to pay for abortion services as a              
 result of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother."  She             
 said they could claim federal funds, under the Medicaid program, to           
 pay for abortions in only those circumstances.  Under the general             
 relief medical program, the funding is used to pay for elective               
 abortions.                                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER stated, "And as you heard this morning, ... we are                 
 operating under consent decrees since 1993 with the ACLU that we              
 would not, in enforcing the GRM abortion regulations, require                 
 proving that there was a threat to the woman's life or that she had           
 a psychological problem with the pregnancy in order for her to get            
 the funding for the pregnancy."  Ms. Weller offered to make a copy            
 of that consent decree available to the committee.                            
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that was a public record.                        
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER said yes.                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 2259                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said he was glad to hear that they could                
 perhaps save 590 lives, out of the 730 lost through abortion.  He             
 said there was not enough money for other needed medical services.            
 He asked:  If it would make the individual responsible for paying             
 for abortions, wouldn't that free up more money for the dental care           
 needed for seniors, as well as eyeglasses?  He noted that                     
 approximately $500,000 was involved.                                          
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER noted that they are different programs.                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether there are any requirements              
 that the department look to the parents or legal guardians for                
 reimbursement for these procedures.  He asked whether an                      
 unemancipated minor could request a Medicaid reimbursement for an             
 abortion, even though her parents would not be eligible for                   
 Medicaid.                                                                     
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER explained, "A minor can come to the Division of Public             
 Assistance because she is pregnant and apply for assistance to pay            
 for an abortion procedure and claim that ... they want their                  
 information to be confidential; they have not told their parents.             
 And so, in those circumstances, we would not request information on           
 the parents' financial information in determining the eligibility             
 of the minor, because we would be invading ... their                          
 confidentiality in order to do that."                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked:  What if she did not request                   
 confidentiality?                                                              
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER replied that if the applicant were a minor, she would              
 have to supply financial information from her parents.                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the state would seek                    
 reimbursement from the parents at that time.                                  
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER answered that if the family was low-income, the young              
 woman could qualify for Medicaid assistance.  However, if the                 
 family was over-income because of the parents' income, she would be           
 ineligible.                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether that was for the initial                
 grant.  He also asked whether the division would look into that               
 prior to allowing the procedure.                                              
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER explained that a person had to be found eligible prior             
 to that.  The two criteria are that she must be financially                   
 eligible and pregnant.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 2409                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said if the parental consent bill passed, then           
 when a minor asked for financial assistance for an abortion, there            
 would have to be either judicial bypass or parental consent if the            
 mother-to-be was under 16 years of age.  "So, that takes care of              
 the confidentiality problem that currently exists," he added.                 
                                                                               
 MS. WELLER replied, "It could impact the confidentiality, yes.                
 They have to have parental consent."  She reiterated that Section             
 3 of this bill would prevent the department from paying for                   
 abortion procedures altogether.                                               
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-65, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0006                                                                   
                                                                               
 PETER NAKAMURA, MD, MPH, Director, Division of Public Health,                 
 Department of Health and Social Services, came forward to testify.            
 He specified he was speaking on the bill just from a health                   
 perspective.                                                                  
                                                                               
 DR. NAKAMURA stated, "We've got a lot to learn from history.                  
 Before access to this procedure was available - and by access,                
 we're talking about financial access, we're talking about legal               
 access and we're talking about medical access - we had a period of            
 time where we had hospitals dedicated to doing nothing more than              
 taking care of the complications of illegal back-alley abortion               
 procedures, self-induced abortions.  Once we had legal access, and            
 once we had medical access, we began to bring these numbers down to           
 the point now where doing an abortion of any type is much safer               
 than a normal delivery."                                                      
                                                                               
 DR. NAKAMURA emphasized that financial access is highly                       
 significant.  They are talking about a vulnerable population of               
 women who without financial means would have no access, despite the           
 legal possibility and medical safety.  He concluded by expressing             
 concern about HB 234 because it decreases that very important                 
 financial access.                                                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked whether this might result in lawsuits to           
 overturn the law or court pressure to increase funding.                       
                                                                               
 DR. NAKAMURA replied that he could not begin to speculate.                    
 However, he hoped something would happen to allow additional funds            
 to come forward, to make sure that these highly vulnerable women do           
 have access.                                                                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked why a court would require a voluntary surgery.           
                                                                               
 Number 0117                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said as he understands current federal law,              
 because abortion is legal, the state must provide it for people who           
 cannot afford it; at least, that is Alaska's attorney general's               
 interpretation.  Because of abortion's placement on the priority              
 list, funding was cut off de facto.  He asked whether the courts              
 would say the legislation was flawed or require the state to put              
 enough money in or rearrange priorities so that the money goes far            
 enough down the list to include abortion.                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN commented that many states do not provide for           
 abortions.  He suggested that information could be obtained from a            
 right-to-life organization.                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, then, it is not federally mandated.  He asked            
 whether Representative Bunde's concern was that Alaska statute may            
 have to be revised or that this may be in conflict.                           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that Alaska's attorney general has said            
 the state must provide access to all, even those who cannot afford            
 it.  He himself believes people should be able to pay for services            
 they want, and he opposes elective surgery of any kind being state-           
 funded.  However, if the state supreme court says the state must              
 provide access, including financial support if necessary, then the            
 portion of the bill that lists abortion below the cut-off level               
 would deny access.  The bill may be unconstitutional.  He suggested           
 more far-fetched would be that the court would say the legislature            
 must put more money into the Department of Health and Services                
 budget so that the money goes far enough to reach that level.                 
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were more questions for Dr.                
 Nakamura and then called upon Deborah Behr.                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0265                                                                   
                                                                               
 DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation and                     
 Regulations Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law,              
 came forward to testify.  She specified that although she was a               
 regulations attorney, she had in the past advised the Medicaid and            
 general relief medical programs.  She was also counsel when then-             
 Governor Hickel was preparing his abortion regulations and had done           
 considerable research in this area.                                           
                                                                               
 MS. BEHR noted that this is a highly complex area of law and that             
 answers differ in various states.  When the federal Medicaid                  
 program first began, Medicaid funding for abortions was fairly                
 wide-open.  However, the U.S. Congress cut that back so it was only           
 covered in cases of rape and incest, with occasional coverage when            
 the life of the mother was in danger.                                         
                                                                               
 MS. BEHR explained, "It's usually done by a rider on the                      
 appropriation bills in Congress."  There had been major lawsuits              
 all over the U.S. regarding whether Congress could discriminate               
 against poor people.  The U.S. Supreme Court determined that this             
 was a benefit, that Congress can decide what level of benefit to              
 fund and that it was fine under federal law.                                  
                                                                               
 MS. BEHR advised that there had been a second wave of case                    
 decisions in states having a constitutional right to privacy.                 
 Noting that the case decisions in this area were different, she               
 offered to provide case cites later.                                          
                                                                               
 MS. BEHR explained that generally, decisions in states with a                 
 constitutional right of privacy, as Alaska has, deemed that the               
 state does not have to fund any service.  However, if it chooses to           
 fund a service and enters into a zone of what they call `privacy,'            
 it must do so with neutrality.  For example, if the state funds               
 pregnancy services, it must fund the other side of the coin, which            
 is abortion services.                                                         
                                                                               
 MS. BEHR advised that there were decisions in Connecticut and a               
 couple of other states that she could provide if requested.                   
                                                                               
 MS. BEHR recounted that when she was assisting then-Governor Hickel           
 in drafting regulations, she was looking at options.  She said,               
 "And one of the things that most of the states in those areas said,           
 at minimum, you've got to cover therapeutic abortions."  She noted            
 that this bill does not cover therapeutic abortions; it only takes            
 into account the possible death of the mother.  "So it truly does             
 not address those kinds of cases," she added.                                 
                                                                               
 MR. BEHR said at the time they put out the regulations, they knew             
 they were into a gray area in the state of Alaska, which had no               
 case decisions in this area.  "The regulations came out, and we               
 were in court within hours," she said.  She noted that legislative            
 counsel looked at those.  Ms. Behr has memos in her files from 1992           
 that essentially say the regulations put in by then-Governor Hickel           
 were unconstitutional.  She stated, "And I would suggest strongly             
 that you have your own counsel look at this bill and see if her               
 conclusion has changed, ... based on those decisions."  Ms. Behr              
 asked whether she could provide further information.                          
                                                                               
 Number 0373                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked about the case cites Ms. Behr had offered to             
 obtain.                                                                       
                                                                               
 MS. BEHR stated, "Yes, I can speak with your counsel later and help           
 you on it.  It's a difficult area of the law; it really is."                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said as he understood it, the state had no                     
 obligation in this area.  However, if it chose to act, there was an           
 obligation to cover both sides of the coin.                                   
                                                                               
 MS. BEHR said yes, that is the basic problem of the question with             
 a constitutional right of privacy.  She noted that at least one               
 constitutional amendment was proposed to try to stop state funding            
 for abortions but did not pass the electorate.  "So I'm fairly                
 certain that this type of bill would not pass constitutional muster           
 in this state," she advised.                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0412                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN referred to a case in 1982, which he said was           
 brought before the people but did not pass.  He asked:  Even though           
 Ms. Behr says the state has a responsibility to finance abortions,            
 are they limited as to the source of the revenue?                             
                                                                               
 MS. BEHR said she was confused.  She stated that the Division of              
 Medical Assistance cannot fund any abortion without an                        
 appropriation.  "So, in that way, the state of Alaska has to fund             
 abortions, because it has to be done through an appropriation                 
 process," she added.                                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN asked:  "And if we are appropriating money              
 from the parent, from the father who is responsible for the                   
 pregnancy, what's wrong with that?"                                           
                                                                               
 MS. BEHR noted that she had been a child support attorney.  She               
 stated, "And it's very difficult establishing paternity of a child.           
 It's very difficult, once you establish paternity of a child, doing           
 collection of it.  Oftentimes, the amount of money that you're                
 talking about, in the case of an abortion, is the cost of                     
 collection, the cost of court action and the costs of DNA                     
 [testing].  I'm not sure that they'd necessarily net out."                    
                                                                               
 Number 0462                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked about the difficulty of determining who the              
 father is.                                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. BEHR said given that people applying for general relief medical           
 assistance are low-income, it is a better than 50/50 chance that              
 litigation would be required to establish paternity.  At very early           
 stages, it perhaps could be done through DNA testing, without                 
 necessarily going through a whole court process.  Although a man              
 could admit to paternity, he certainly did not have to.                       
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said earlier testimony indicated they could                    
 determine who the father was.                                                 
                                                                               
 MS. BEHR explained that when a woman applies for public assistance,           
 she has to name a person, whether she is right or wrong.  She noted           
 that in some cases, the woman is unsure and there must be DNA                 
 testing of several people to determine paternity.                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said with child support enforcement, there              
 has been much more success than anticipated.  He said all the fears           
 being brought up now were brought up earlier about "forcing the               
 poor woman to disclose who the father was."  He suggested the cost            
 involved in finding out who the father is has diminished                      
 significantly.  He said as to collection, Alaskans receive                    
 permanent fund dividends and it is easy to put a lien against that            
 check.                                                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "If they can prove that that's the father."              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN concurred.  He restated that collection is              
 minor.  He said one important reason why the child support                    
 enforcement law is working well is that the state has an incentive.           
 Last year, the federal government gave the state a $2.1-million               
 incentive because of the success rate in finding the fathers.  He             
 commented, "You can't say that 80 percent of the kids will be                 
 welfare cases when they're having such good success now in finding            
 who the fathers are and make them -- take them off of welfare."               
                                                                               
 Number 0638                                                                   
                                                                               
 CARLA TIMPONE, Lobbyist for the Alaska Women's Lobby, came forward            
 to testify.  The Alaska Women's Lobby is unequivocally opposed to             
 any piece of legislation that limits a woman's right to access a              
 safe and legal abortion.  In addition, they have specific concerns            
 about HB 234.                                                                 
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE noted that under the bill, a woman applying for general           
 relief medical (GRM) assistance to pay for an abortion must name              
 the putative father, unless the department determines that she has            
 good cause not to do so.  The definition of `good cause' as                   
 outlined by Representative Rokeberg's amendment includes rape or              
 incest.  Ms. Timpone stated, "Quite frankly, the Women's Lobby                
 would like to see that definition not just be limited to rape or              
 incest but to be left the way the language is currently in the                
 bill, because we feel it's broader.  There are many women who are             
 victims of domestic violence who find themselves in life-                     
 threatening situations.  And we would not like them to be excluded            
 from the `good cause' definition by limiting it to rape or incest."           
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE continued, "The woman then has to assign to the                   
 department the right of recovery to the funds to pay for this                 
 service.  We're concerned - and we don't think that it's outside              
 the realm of possibility that this could happen - that a woman will           
 name a putative father, of course he won't be found, because that             
 is far and away most often the case, the woman's PFD ...."                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN interjected with a question:  "You say far and away;           
 is that because the person has gone or that this is a fictitious              
 name or ....?                                                                 
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE replied, "I would say either."  Acknowledging that she            
 is not a medical expert, she said she assumes fetal tissue would              
 have to be used for paternity tests, which would occur after the              
 abortion.  That would be unlike paternity establishment used by the           
 Child Support Enforcement Division of the Department of Revenue,              
 which is usually a blood test because it involves two living                  
 people.                                                                       
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE said like the Child Support Enforcement Division, that            
 also assumes the Division of Public Assistance would have at its              
 disposal a team of employees whose only job is to locate absent               
 parents.  However, she does not believe the latter agency has that.           
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE explained, "We've heard testimony that when a woman -             
 a single woman - comes in to apply for public assistance, she must            
 give them the name of the father.  And that is absolutely true.               
 However, that pretty much ends the responsibility of the Division             
 of Public Assistance.  They get the name, they pass it on to Child            
 Support Enforcement and Child Support Enforcement picks it up from            
 there."                                                                       
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE continued, "At least the way I read the bill, that is             
 not going to be the case here. ... Because the bill does not say              
 that anybody else is responsible, I'm assuming that the Division of           
 Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services, would            
 be responsible for doing that location.  And I am not sure that               
 they have staff that do that or even qualify to do that."                     
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE continued, "So, the woman has to assign her right of              
 recovery to the department.  If the father cannot be found and/or             
 made to pay, then the woman's PFD is garnished.  What happens,                
 then, if the father is located?  The woman can't recover a portion            
 of what was taken from her, financially, to pay for the procedure,            
 because she has assigned her right of recovery to the department.             
 ... It doesn't say that that assignment is null and void once, and            
 if, he is found.  So, in other words, a woman's PFD is garnished to           
 pay for the entire amount of the procedure.  Dad suddenly turns up            
 or she finds him.  She is prohibited from seeking half the cost of            
 the procedure, because she has assigned her right of recovery to              
 the Department of Health and Social Services."                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked why that would preclude the woman from getting           
 back half from the father.                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE replied, "Because she has assigned the right of                   
 recovery of the payment to the department."                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "For the permanent fund dividend.  So, she               
 gives that up and then they find me, why can't I repay her?"                  
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE answered, "You could voluntarily.  But if you don't               
 choose to voluntarily, she has no legal recourse to try to get it,            
 because she has assigned her right of recovery to the Department of           
 Health and Social Services.  So, we have a concern about that."               
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE continued, "We also have some concerns about the nature           
 of singling out this particular procedure because it is an elective           
 procedure, or, in any case, that's how it has been characterized.             
 I believe that there is a possibility that there are other                    
 circumstances under which treatment is paid for under GRM for                 
 people who suffer a medical condition or an injury as a result of             
 a situation over which they had control.  For instance, if a                  
 homeless alcoholic falls asleep on the curbside and is run over by            
 the garbage truck and requires medical treatment as a result of his           
 choice to drink himself into stupefaction, I might have some                  
 problems with the state's paying for treatment of that person."               
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE continued, "I think that we start to go down a slippery           
 slope when we start to prohibit some medical procedures because we            
 have moral or religious problems with that particular kind of                 
 procedure, because there's a wide spectrum of procedures that                 
 different ones of us could have moral or religious problems with.             
 Someone who is GRM-eligible ... steals a bike, takes a ride without           
 a helmet, suffers a head injury.  Is the state obligated to treat             
 that person?  Some of us might have a problem with that.  So, we              
 have a concern in that regard."                                               
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE continued, "And while I understand that what the                  
 sponsor is trying to get to, and don't disagree at all, is an                 
 equality of responsibility, I think, then, we also have to address            
 equality of class, for lack of a better word.  The bill is not a              
 referendum or a statement on abortion.  It's a statement on who we            
 feel deserves to have one.  It's okay to have an abortion if you              
 can afford to pay for it out of your pocket; it's not okay to have            
 an abortion if the state has to pay for it.  I think we begin to              
 get into a whole other set of issues there that relate primarily to           
 class, and we certainly have some concern with that as well."                 
                                                                               
 Number 1005                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested there is a class distinction anyway,                 
 regarding insurance, for example, that pays for a private room or             
 does not.                                                                     
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE replied, "Well, to a degree.  You're still receiving              
 the medical service.  You may just be receiving it in nicer                   
 surroundings."                                                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to Ms. Timpone's discussion of an inebriate           
 that gets run over by a truck and questioned her willingness to               
 provide one service over the other.                                           
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE clarified that if the state pays in one case, she                 
 believes it should pay in the other.                                          
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested the reverse may be true:  If it does not             
 pay in one case, perhaps it should not pay in the other.                      
                                                                               
 MS. TIMPONE emphasized that there should be equality.                         
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were questions, then requested             
 that Ms. Timpone answer future questions from committee members.              
 (HB 234 was held over.)                                                       
                                                                               
 ADJOURNMENT                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 1135                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee               
 meeting at 3:44 p.m.                                                          
                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects