04/17/2024 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB338 | |
| HB386 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB338 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 386 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 338 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 17, 2024
1:51 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance, Chair
Representative Jamie Allard, Vice Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Jesse Sumner
Representative Andrew Gray
Representative Cliff Groh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Will Stapp
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 338
"An Act relating to physician liability for gender transition
procedures performed on minors; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HB 338 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 386
"An Act relating to the obstruction of airports and runways;
relating to the obstruction of highways; establishing the crime
of obstruction of free passage in public places; relating to the
obstruction of public places; relating to the crime of
trespassing; relating to the obstruction of navigable waters;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 386(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to parental rights in a child's education;
relating to access to school records; relating to sex education,
human reproduction education, and human sexuality education;
relating to school disciplinary and safety programs; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 105(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 338
SHORT TITLE: PHYS LBLTY: GENDER TRANS PROCEDURE;MINORS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ALLARD
02/20/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/24 (H) JUD
03/06/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/06/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/08/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/08/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/25/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/25/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/27/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/27/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/10/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/10/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/15/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/15/24 (H) Heard & Held
04/15/24 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/17/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 386
SHORT TITLE: OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PLACES; TRESPASSING
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/21/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/24 (H) TRA, JUD
03/12/24 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/12/24 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/24 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/14/24 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/14/24 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/19/24 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/19/24 (H) Heard & Held
03/19/24 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/21/24 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/21/24 (H) Moved HB 386 Out of Committee
03/21/24 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/25/24 (H) TRA RPT 5DP 1DNP 1AM
03/25/24 (H) DP: MCKAY, VANCE, SUMNER, C.JOHNSON,
MCCABE
03/25/24 (H) DNP: MINA
03/25/24 (H) AM: STUTES
04/10/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/10/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/15/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/15/24 (H) Heard & Held
04/15/24 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/17/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 105
SHORT TITLE: SEX/REPRODUCTION EDUCATION; SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/23 (H) EDC, JUD
03/13/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/13/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/29/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/29/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/30/23 (H) EDC AT 5:15 PM DAVIS 106
03/30/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/30/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/13/23 (H) EDC AT 5:15 PM BARNES 124
04/13/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/24/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/24/23 (H) Heard & Held
04/24/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/26/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/26/23 (H) Moved CSHB 105(EDC) Out of Committee
04/26/23 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/28/23 (H) EDC RPT CS(EDC) NEW TITLE 1DP 3DNP 1NR
2AM
04/28/23 (H) DP: PRAX
04/28/23 (H) DNP: HIMSCHOOT, STORY, MCCORMICK
04/28/23 (H) NR: RUFFRIDGE
04/28/23 (H) AM: MCKAY, ALLARD
04/28/23 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/28/23 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
05/01/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/01/23 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
01/31/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/31/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/15/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/15/24 (H) Heard & Held
04/15/24 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/17/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MORGAN LIM, Government Relations Manager
Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
DONNA FLEMING, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
CAROL HABEGER, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
MELISSA ZAHASKY, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
CAROL ROSE, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
KATRINA MITCHELL, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
ADENA COMPTON, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
MARIE MESSING, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
BRIAN MESSING, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
GRIFFEN SUKKAEW, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
SENECA ROACH, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
BILL DEAN, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
ALEXANDER ROSALES, representing self
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
MONICA WHITMAN, representing self
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
TIMOTHY BARTO, representing self
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
LINDSEY BANNING, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
JOSH SMITH, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
STEPHANIE UZZELL, representing self
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
JESSE SAIKI, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
DAVID LESLIE, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
JASON LAND, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
ROSE HART, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
ERICA STANNARD, representing self
Matsu, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
CARLY JENSEN, representing self
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
ASHLYN JOHNSON, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
NITHYA THIRU, Queer & Trans Justice Program Manager
American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
MO DART, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
PAMELA SAMASH, representing self
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
XOCHITL MUNOZ, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
JULIE SMYTH, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
REBECCA BERNARD, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
KASEY MOW, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
SALIM HOUCK, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
KC CASORT, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
LILLIAN LENNON, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
ROSE TITUS, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
JEANNE SWARTZ, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
ELEANOR LOCKE, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
ELEANOR LOCKE, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
WINDY PERKINS, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
EMILY COHEN, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
KATRINA DOWELL, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
SERENE O'HARA-JOLLEY, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
MIKE COONS, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 338.
KATE VEH, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
MAXINE DOOGAN, President
Community United for Safety and Protection
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 338.
MORGAN LIM, Government Relations Manager,
Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
JARED SOLOMAN, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 386.
AMBER NICKERSON, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
KEVIN MCGEE, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
MICHAEL PATTERSON
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
JOSH SMITH, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
STEPHANIE UZZELL, representing self
North Pole
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
JESSE SAIKI, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
DAVID LESLIE, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
AUSTEN COULSON, representing self
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
JASON LAND, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
ROSE HART, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
AYESHA NALIK, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
CARLY JENSEN, representing self
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
JULIE SMYTH, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
CYNTHIA GACHUPIN, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
MICHAEL GARVEY, Advocacy Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
KC CASORT, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: testified in opposition to HB 386.
KACEY HOPSON, Interim Director of the Alaska Native Policy
Center
First Alaskans Institute
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
EMILY COHEN, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
SERENE O'HARA-JOLLEY, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
ANEL COLLINS, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
CAROLINA SAAVEDRA, representing self
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 386.
MIKE COONS, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 386.
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General (Civil Division)
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on amendments to HB 386.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division (Legal Services Section)
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on amendments to HB 386.
CLAIRE RADFORD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
386.
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
386.
PARKER PATTERSON, Attorney
Legislation, Regulations & Legislative Research Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
386.
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Division Operations Manager
Innovation and Education Excellence
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS for HB 105, Version O.
MARGARET BERGERUD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS for HB 105, Version O.
BOB BALLINGER, Staff
Representative Sarah Vance
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed CS for HB 105, Version O, on behalf of
Representative Vance.
CONRAN GUNTHER, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
338.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:51:30 PM
CHAIR VANCE called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:51 p.m. Representatives Gray, C. Johnson,
Carpenter, Sumner, and Vance were present at the call to order.
Representatives Allard and Groh arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Also present were Representatives Himschoot, Galvin,
and Stapp.
HB 338-PHYS LBLTY: GENDER TRANS PROCEDURE;MINORS
1:54:10 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 338, "An Act relating to physician liability for
gender transition procedures performed on minors; and providing
for an effective date."
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HB 338.
1:54:43 PM
MORGAN LIM, Government Relations Manager, Planned Parenthood
Alliance Advocates, testified in opposition to HB 338. He
stated that PPAA strongly opposes HB 338, a bill that would
increase physicians' liability for providing necessary
healthcare and result in a severe chilling affect that further
limits transgender ("trans") youth access to care. He urged the
committee to consider the human costs of the bill and oppose HB
338, thereby ensuring that Alaska is a state that respects and
protects the dignity of its residents.
1:56:08 PM
DONNA FLEMING, representing self, testified in support of HB
338. She shared a personal anecdote and expressed her support
for Section 3 of the bill.
1:57:27 PM
CAROL HABEGER, representing self, testified in support of HB
338. She said she supports the bill, as children are not
capable of making this life threatening, life changing decision
until their brains are fully developed. She opined that
physicians should be held accountable until the age of 25.
1:58:59 PM
MELISSA ZAHASKY, representing self, testified in support of HB
338. She shared a personal anecdote and opined that physicians
facilitating gender reassignment must be held liable for damages
incurred.
1:59:54 PM
CAROL ROSE, representing self, testified in support of HB 338.
She shared a personal anecdote and opined that [physicians]
should be held accountable for altering a child's life.
2:01:14 PM
KATRINA MITCHELL, representing self, testified in support of HB
338. She urged the committee to implement the bill to ensure
that children are not victims of intense social pressure and
hasty decisions.
2:02:40 PM
ADENA COMPTON, representing self, testified in support of HB
338. She referenced a data leak from the World Professional
Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) that highlighted
numerous concerns about gender affirming care. She reiterated
her support for the bill.
2:04:10 PM
MARIE MESSING, representing self, testified in support of HB
338. She expressed concern about the ability of children to
provide informed consent in the WPATH standard of care.
2:05:43 PM
BRIAN MESSING, representing self, testified in support of HB
338. He urged the legislature to implement the bill to ensure
that physicians are liable for gender transition procedures
performed on minors.
2:08:29 PM
GRIFFEN SUKKAEW, representing self, testified in support of HB
338. He addressed a question asked by Representative Gray
during the previous bill hearing, stating that he himself is a
happy transgender man who was lucky enough to get on hormone
replacement therapy (HRT) at the age of 17. He stated that the
bill would make it harder for many trans children to acquire HRT
and lead to irreversible harm.
2:09:55 PM
SENECA ROACH, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. He said whatever the objective, the main effect of the
legislation would be to disincentivize medical care
practitioners and organizations from treating patients. He
urged the committee to vote "no" on the proposed legislation.
2:11:21 PM
BILL DEAN, representing self, testified in support of HB 338.
He questioned how a child could make a wise decision given all
the propaganda and influence from peers and teachers.
2:12:50 PM
ALEXANDER ROSALES, representing self, testified in support of HB
338. He likened gender reassignment surgery to gender
mutilation and urged the legislature to leave the kids alone.
2:13:47 PM
MONICA WHITMAN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. She said Alaskans have made it clear that they don't want
the government involved in their healthcare. She opined that
creating an environment where physicians are told which
treatments they can and can't do based on what the political
group in power is suggesting is bad for business.
2:15:15 PM
TIMOTHY BARTO, representing self, testified in support of HB
338. He said the bill is designed to protect the mutilation of
children by holding medical providers responsible for the damage
inflicted on children as a result of a current sociological
trend. He urged a "yes" vote on HB 338.
2:16:39 PM
LINDSEY BANNING, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 338. She said the bill is designed to make gender affirming
care out of reach for trans youth in Alaska because the sponsor
has strong feelings about trans kids and their healthcare. She
urged the legislature to keep politics out of healthcare and
vote "no" on HB 338.
2:18:02 PM
JOSH SMITH, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. He said by increasing the statute of limitations, the bill
would make healthcare unachievable for kids that need it the
most.
2:19:28 PM
STEPHANIE UZZELL, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 338. She said the bill clearly singles out trans kids, as
evidenced by the attempt at criminalizing medical care for
children. She said she is appalled at some of the language and
that children have a right to autonomy.
2:20:47 PM
JESSE SAIKI, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. She urged the committee not to support the bill, which
aims to limit access to trans healthcare and gender affirming
services.
2:22:04 PM
DAVID LESLIE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. He opined that the bill is racist and goes against
traditional Alaska Native cultural ways, which has multiple
genders outside the binary Gender. He said the bill would
affect employment in the state and was being deliberately used
to attack vulnerable people.
2:23:10 PM
JASON LAND, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. He said HB 338 is an attack on trans kids and an attempt
to scare doctors away from saving kids.
2:24:30 PM
ROSE HART, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 338.
She said the bill is obviously designed to make gender affirming
care harder by increasing liability for gender affirming care
providers. She urged the committee not to support HB 338.
2:25:46 PM
ERICA STANNARD, representing self, doctor, testified in
opposition to HB 338. She said she opposes the bill because
patients, families, and medical professionals know what's best
for them. She urged the committee to oppose HB 338 and
requested that they not continue to waste the legislature and
public's time debating care for lesbian, gay bisexual,
transgender, queer, or questioning ("LGBTQ+") youth.
2:26:51 PM
CARLY JENSEN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. She stated that making doctors more liable for the care
they provide would drive doctors out of the state where medical
resources are already spread thin. She opined that the bill
would further ostracize and harm the LGBTQ+ community.
2:27:57 PM
ASHLYN JOHNSON, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. She said the bill threatens to undermine trust between
doctors and patients, heightens legal risk for healthcare
providers, discourages [providers] from offering lifesaving
treatment, and limits access to care for transgender minors.
Moreover, she opined that allowing legal action for up to 20
years post treatment would add an unreasonable burden on
healthcare providers, potentially increase insurance costs, and
deter specialists from practicing in the field. She concluded
that the bill would jeopardize the future of some of the most
vulnerable youth.
2:29:29 PM
NITHYA THIRU, Queer & Trans Justice Program Manager, American
Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, testified in opposition to HB
338. She said the bill would make it more likely that insurers
would not cover gender affirming care for youth due to increased
liability, thereby adding another roadblock for trans people.
2:30:36 PM
MO DART, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 338.
She said the bill is an attempt to scare away medical
professionals and limit access to gender affirming care for
youth, which is another attack on queer youth.
2:31:53 PM
PAMELA SAMASH, representing self, testified in support of HB
338. She said she is supportive of parental rights; however,
there is no right to mutilate a child. She urged the committee
to "end this" to avoid higher Medicaid payments down the line,
and to protect [children's] health and future.
2:33:18 PM
XOCHITL MUNOZ, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. She shared a personal anecdote and urged the committee to
talk to trans people about their experiences and to oppose the
bill.
2:34:23 PM
JULIE SMYTH, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. She urged the committee to oppose the bill if they support
kids.
2:35:47 PM
REBECCA BERNARD, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 338. She said the bill runs counter to the overwhelming
scientific evidence and medical opinion that gender affirming
care is medically necessary, lifesaving care for many trans
youths. If passed, she said the bill would be an unacceptable
and misinformed intrusion by the state into the
patient/physician relationship and the right of parents and
their children to make their own healthcare decisions.
2:37:11 PM
KASEY MOW, representing self, testified in support of HB 338.
She urged the passage of HB 338 because minors' brains need time
to develop. She urged the committee to hold doctors accountable
for the destruction of a child's body and the harmful effects
that may follow this procedure.
2:38:26 PM
SALIM HOUCK, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. They shared a personal anecdote and expressed opposition
to the bill because patients, families, and medical
professionals, not politicians, know what's best for them. They
requested that medical decisions be left to medical
professionals.
2:39:40 PM
KC CASORT, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 338.
She said it's hard enough to be a kid, and [children] do not
need politicians making it harder for trans kids by denying them
best practice medical care, limiting providers, and stigmatizing
their care by singling it out as somehow different from other
types of medical care for young people.
2:40:54 PM
LILLIAN LENNON, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. She said the bill could have profound effects on the
health, safety, and stigma of trans people, and is an obvious
attempt at intimidating healthcare professionals into denying
gender affirming care for trans patients.
2:42:51 PM
ROSE TITUS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. She expressed concern that bills like HB 338 could lead to
targeting trans adults, queer people, and homeless communities,
and denying them medical care as well.
2:43:53 PM
JEANNE SWARTZ, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. She said the bill is based on fear, ignorance, and
prejudice, and expressed concern that the legislature is taking
up valuable time on frivolous legislation.
2:44:54 PM
ELEANOR LOCKE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. She shared her personal experience and expressed strong
opposition to the bill.
2:46:03 PM
ELEANOR LOCKE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338 because it would increase sex trafficking in Alaska. She
explained that when trans youth cannot access appropriate care,
they face lifelong discrimination in employment and continuously
turn to sex work as a social safety net.
2:46:59 PM
WINDY PERKINS, representing self, testified in support of HB
338. She said the bill is about holding medical professionals
accountable for mutilating people's bodies.
2:48:35 PM
EMILY COHEN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. She encouraged legislators not to overstep their role by
assuming they have the expertise and knowledge to know the best
outcome in private healthcare conversations between medical
providers, families and children.
2:49:33 PM
KATRINA DOWELL, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
338. She said this kind of legislation would effectively drive
away physicians from an already medically underserved state and
negatively impact not only trans Alaskans, but all Alaskan
children. She urged the committee to leave decisions regarding
gender affirming care to patients, their families, and qualified
physicians practicing evidence-based medicine.
2:50:57 PM
SERENE O'HARA-JOLLEY, representing self, testified in opposition
to HB 338. She said the government has no business telling
parents how to raise their children and should not be taking
away the rights of families to make decisions with their
doctors.
2:52:12 PM
MIKE COONS, representing self, testified in support of HB 338.
He shared his experience as a paramedic and opined that any
physician that prescribes hormonal drugs or performs these
surgical procedures in violation of the law has committed child
abuse and child sexual abuse.
2:53:25 PM
KATE VEH, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 338.
She shared her understanding that there are no gender affirming
surgeries happening in the state of Alaska and urged the
committee to vote "no" on HB 338.
2:54:22 PM
MAXINE DOOGAN, President, Community United for Safety and
Protection, testified in opposition to HB 338 and opined that
the bill is government overreach.
CHAIR VANCE closed public testimony on HB 338. She noted that
the bill would be taken up again later in the meeting.
2:55:16 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:57:08 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 338 would be held over.
HB 386-OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PLACES; TRESPASSING
2:57:38 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 386, "An Act relating to the obstruction of
airports and runways; relating to the obstruction of highways;
establishing the crime of obstruction of free passage in public
places; relating to the obstruction of public places; relating
to the crime of trespassing; relating to the obstruction of
navigable waters; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR VANCE opened public testimony on HB 386.
2:58:17 PM
MORGAN LIM, Government Relations Manager, Planned Parenthood
Alliance Advocates, testified in opposition to HB 386. He said
the language is so broad that it renders constitutionally
protected speech illegal and so vague that those who wish to
follow or enforce the law are unclear as to the legislation's
scope. He added that there is no way for the state to neutrally
apply this bill, which could be used to target politically
disfavored speech, and raises more questions than answers as to
what conduct is permissible in public. He opined that the new
crime appears to criminalize homelessness in public places and
could be weaponized by law enforcement to target marginalized
groups.
2:59:40 PM
JARED SOLOMAN, representing self, testified during the hearing
on HB 386. He characterized the bill as a fruitless attempt at
squelching public participation. He opined that people no
longer have a voice when it comes to influencing legislation,
and the last resort is public protest.
3:02:28 PM
AMBER NICKERSON, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 386. She said it it's not right for [the legislature] to
decide to take away federal rights.
3:03:45 PM
KEVIN MCGEE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386, which, he said, would suppress Alaskans' free speech in
violation of their constitutional rights. He added that HB 386
would attempt to eliminate the intrinsic rights of free speech
and peaceful assembly, not just through government action, but
by enabling private companies to take individual Alaskans to
court.
3:05:12 PM
MICHAEL PATTERSON, Party for Socialism and Liberation,
Anchorage, testified in opposition to HB 386. He said the bill
is an attack on free speech and the freedom to assemble. He
shared that he is a disabled Iraq war veteran and did not
imagine that he would come home to testify against a bill
limiting his freedom of expression and free speech.
3:06:22 PM
JOSH SMITH, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. He said he is adamantly against the bill because it's
constitutionally problematic and vague. He added that leaving
its application to the discretion up to law enforcement could
result in unequal application of the law. He concluded that
these changes would actively sequester the participation of
Alaskans' First Amendment rights.
3:07:22 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:07 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.
3:11:25 PM
STEPHANIE UZZELL, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 386. She said the bill is vague and broad, and blatantly
goes against First Amendment rights. She opined that the bill
is intended to silence dissent and would use money to
disincentivize protesting; further, it would label all
protestors at the state's discretion as felony offenders, which
would then remove their voting power in the future.
3:13:18 PM
JESSE SAIKI, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. She said the bill is a terrifying overstep by Governor
Dunleavy and an attempt at controlling freedom of speech and the
ability to rise up against oppressive systems. She urged the
committee not to let [Alaskans'] rights be stripped away like
the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
3:14:43 PM
DAVID LESLIE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. He said the bill would be unequally applied and
characterized it as an attempt at reinforcing white supremacy
and [suppressing] marginalized communities.
3:15:58 PM
AUSTEN COULSON, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. He said the bill represents a clear and present violation
of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to make no law
abridging the freedom of speech or the right to peacefully
assemble. He added that the bill is a clear attempt at
intimidating working class activists and organizers from
exercising their rights.
3:16:56 PM
JASON LAND, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. He said the bill is a waste of time and money, and an
attempt to scare protestors. He opined that others would be
looped in too, because of the bill's vague language.
3:18:13 PM
ROSE HART, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 386.
She said HB 386 is merely an attempt at criminalizing citizens
who are exercising their First Amendment rights. She opined
that the bill could not be governed fairly.
3:19:26 PM
AYESHA NALIK, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. She expressed alarm that the bill would make it so anyone
who protests Governor Dunleavy or displays any political dissent
that was not preapproved beforehand would be labeled as a class
C felon.
3:20:45 PM
CARLY JENSEN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. She said the bill is too broad and would criminalize
individuals for engaging in their civic duty while demonizing
the police force by forcing them to enforce vague laws.
3:21:36 PM
JULIE SMYTH, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. She said it "boggles [her] mind" that the bill is coming
from the same people whose party taught her to defend First
Amendment rights at all costs. shared a personal anecdote and
said the bill would lead to many arrests of marginalized people.
3:23:00 PM
CYNTHIA GACHUPIN, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 386. She said the bill violates First Amendment rights and
would criminalize protestors and organizers in Alaska. She
urged a "no" vote on the bill because it's unconstitutional and
unnecessary.
3:24:38 PM
MICHAEL GARVEY, Advocacy Director, American Civil Liberties
Union of Alaska, testified in opposition to HB 386. He said the
ACLU of Alaska is opposed to the bill because it's an
unconstitutional and over broad bill that would chill Alaskans'
rights of free speech and assembly. He opined that HB 386 could
apply to a broad range of behavior and relies on the state's
discretion, adding that whoever is in power could apply the bill
in a discriminatory way.
3:25:55 PM
KC CASORT, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 386
because she does not believe in creating more reasons to arrest
Alaskans for exercising their fundamental right to protest. She
concluded that the bill would crack down on open conversations
and public gatherings and is deeply undemocratic and
unacceptable.
3:27:20 PM
KACEY HOPSON, Interim Director of the Alaska Native Policy
Center, First Alaskans Institute, testified in opposition to HB
386. She said the bill would stifle and silence people from
speaking out on important issues for fear of being criminalized
with a felony offense. Further, the language is vague and
broad, and risks being used to target disfavored speech, she
said, and expressed concern that provisions could be extended to
target those experiencing homelessness.
3:28:39 PM
EMILY COHEN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. She said the bill is an unconstitutional attempt at
removing First Amendment rights to peaceful assembly and
protests and urged the committee not to pass it.
3:29:07 PM
SERENE O'HARA-JOLLEY, representing self, testified in opposition
to HB 386. She pointed out that blocking a major roadway or
port is already an arrestable offense, adding that the bill is
really an attempt at further entrenching bias and power. She
added that the bill cannot be agnostic because the very
definitions are left up to the officer or the court. She opined
that the bill would be weaponized against populations and
characterized it as a power grab to give officers more leverage
to punish those they disagree with.
3:30:20 PM
ANEL COLLINS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
386. She said the bill would give anyone with authority and
animus the ability to cause problems and charge protestors with
a felony.
3:31:31 PM
CAROLINA SAAVEDRA, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 386. She said the bill is designed to have a chilling effect
on freedom of speech and freedom to assembly and seeks to give
insider discretion to the police to decide when and whom to
apply the law. She added that the over broad bill would expose
Alaskans to felony charges and private lawsuits and urged the
committee to reject it.
3:32:47 PM
MIKE COONS, representing self, testified in support of HB 386.
He said the bill would give law enforcement an additional tool
to stop terrorists from blocking access. He opined that tossing
these terrorists into jail for violating [Alaskans'] rights is
what must be done.
CHAIR VANCE closed public testimony on HB 386.
3:34:32 PM
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was recessed at 3:34
p.m., to be continued at 5:30 p.m.
5:45:07 PM
CHAIR VANCE called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting back to order at 5:45 p.m. Representatives Carpenter,
C. Johnson, Sumner, Gray, Groh, Allard, and Vance were present
at the call back to order.
5:45:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 386,
labeled 33-GH2378\A.5, C. Radford, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 1, line 4, following "waters;":
Insert "relating to the unlawful obstruction or
blocking of traffic;"
Page 5, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 11. AS 28.35.140(a) is repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 7:
Delete "July 1."
Insert "July 1,"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected.
5:46:25 PM
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General (Civil Division), Office of
the Attorney General, Department of Law, explained that
Amendment 1 is a cleanup amendment. She deferred to Ms.
Schroeder.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
(Legal Services Section), Department of Law, stated that
Amendment 1 would repeal AS 28.35.140(a) to avoid a rule of
lenity argument. In addition, the proposed amendment would fix
a typo by removing the period after "July 1" and replacing it
with a comma.
5:48:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether Amendment 1 would increase the
penalty for the obstruction of navigable waters.
MS. MILLS said it would not touch the navigable waters statute.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
5:49:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 386,
labeled 33-GH2378\A.2, C. Radford, 4/15/24, which read:
Page 1, line 4, following "waters;":
Insert "relating to the duties of the attorney
general"
Page 5, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 11. AS 44.23.020 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(l) The attorney general shall
(1) develop and make available an online
tool the public may use to report an obstruction that
violates AS 02.20.050, AS 11.61.150, 11.61.155, or
AS 38.05.128; the reporting tool must include a
function that allows for the taking and attaching of
photographs relating to the alleged obstruction;
(2) in consultation with the commissioner
of public safety, determine which obstructions
reported under (1) of this subsection require the
filing of criminal charges; and
(3) develop regulations and procedures to
implement the requirements established under this
subsection."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON objected.
5:49:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH explained that Amendment 2 would make it
easier for the public to report an obstruction with an online
reporting tool.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY sought to confirm that Amendment 2 would
offer an online tool to take pictures of obstruction.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said the system would allow photographs to
be forwarded to make it easier for the law to achieve its
intended ends.
5:52:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether the photo could be used
to charge someone who is no longer obstructing or whether the
individual would have to be caught physically in the act.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said the tool would create a centralized
system.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON restated the question and asked how
the tool would be used.
5:54:05 PM
MS. MILLS explained that first, the photo would need to be
verified. If it met evidentiary requirements and could be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the photo could be used as
evidence against someone even if the police didn't see it or
intervene in the situation.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked, "Does this subject this to
artificial intelligence if you could create a picture?"
MS. MILLS reiterated that the photo would need to be verified to
be used as evidentiary proof.
5:55:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER stated that the proposed amendment may
have a significant fiscal impact. He asked whether Amendment 2
is so important that it's worth endangering the bill's ability
to advance by adding more committee referrals.
5:56:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked from a law enforcement
perspective, whether the online tool is necessary.
MS. MILLS said DOL does not see Amendment 2 as necessary because
law enforcement already has a good process for investigations.
5:57:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH stated that Amendment 2 would offer a more
efficient way to make the bill work.
5:57:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Groh voted in favor
of Amendment 2. Representatives Gray, Allard, Carpenter, C.
Johnson, Sumner, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 1-6.
5:58:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 386,
labeled 33-GH2378\A.3, C. Radford, 4/15/24, which read:
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 09.50.250 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, a
person may bring an action against the state for a
claim arising under AS 09.65.360.
* Sec. 5. AS 09.65.070 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) Notwithstanding (d) of this section, a
person may bring an action against a municipality for
a claim arising under AS 09.65.360."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 10, following "AS 38.05.128":
Insert ", or the state or a municipality that
fails to remove a substance in violation of
AS 11.61.150(a)(3),"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "of a person"
Page 3, line 23:
Delete "or"
Insert "[OR]"
Page 3, line 25, following "hazard":
Insert "; or
(3) fails to remove a substance that the
person has a duty to remove from a highway and the
substance creates a substantial risk of physical
injury to others or renders the highway impassable or
passable only with unreasonable inconvenience or
hazard"
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON objected.
5:58:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH explained that Amendment 3 would allow
citizens to bring civil action against the state or municipality
for failure to remove from a highway a substance that creates
substantial risk of physical injury or renders the highway
impassable, such as snow.
6:00:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON opined that members are going "off the
rails" by comparing knowing obstruction to massive snowfall. He
added that he could not support [Amendment 3].
6:02:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked whether the state or municipality
has a legal duty to remove snow.
6:03:16 PM
CLAIRE RADFORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, said she did not know the answer.
6:03:46 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, stated that
the obstructions created by snow removal are to increase access
on primary [roadways] until sidewalks can be cleared, or the
snow can be hauled.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH stated that Amendment 3 addresses real
problems for his constituents and other Alaskans, as opposed to
the far-fetched problems that the legislation seeks to address.
6:05:54 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives Sumner, Allard,
Carpenter, C. Johnson, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-5.
6:06:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 386,
labeled 33-GH2378\A.4, C. Radford, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 4, line 9, following "knowingly":
Insert "(1)"
Page 4, line 11, following "hazard":
Insert "; or
(2) carries an unconcealed firearm in a
manner that impedes another person's access to a
public place"
Page 4, line 14:
Delete the second occurrence of "or"
Page 4, line 15, following "conduct":
Insert ", other than carrying an unconcealed
firearm, that is"
Page 4, line 16, following "premises":
Insert ";
(3) a peace officer carrying an unconcealed
firearm within the scope and authority of the
officer's employment; or
(4) a person carrying a firearm while
hunting in an area where hunting is authorized by law"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected.
6:06:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained that Amendment 4 would make it a
crime of obstruction of free passage in a public place if
someone were obviously carrying an unconcealed firearm. The
amendment would not apply to law enforcement or someone hunting.
He expressed his fear that given the current political climate,
Alaska is at risk of folks openly displaying firearms in front
of polling places to discourage people certain from voting.
Amendment 4 would prevent that threat to democracy, he said.
6:09:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER referenced the constitutional right to
bear arms and expressed his objection to the proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD expressed concern that Amendment 4 would
violate the Second Amendment.
6:10:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives C. Johnson, Sumner,
Allard, Carpenter, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-5.
CHAIR CARPENTER referenced the legal memorandum ("memo") dated
4/15/24 from Claire Radford [hard copy included in the committee
packet].
6:11:16 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
6:12:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER directed attention to lines 10-11 on
page 4 of the bill and pointed out that there is wide room for
disagreement on what is considered an unreasonable
inconvenience.
6:14:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER moved Conceptual Amendment [5] to
strike the words "or passable only with unreasonable
inconvenience or hazard" on page 4, lines 10-11.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER objected.
6:14:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER explained that the aforementioned legal
memo states that such vague statutory language would likely be
unconstitutional. He added that he offered Conceptual Amendment
[5] for that reason.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER contended that a "reasonableness finding"
is not overly vague; further, he opined that to allow only for
total impassability would narrow the bill more than [the
committee] would want.
6:15:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether Conceptual Amendment 5 would
satisfy the constitutional concerns about the bill.
MS. RADFORD said it's difficult to say with certainty what the
courts would deem unconstitutional in relation to the bill.
Nonetheless, she acknowledged that the proposed conceptual
amendment would alleviate some of the risk related to a court
finding the provision unconstitutional on grounds of vagueness.
6:17:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether Conceptual Amendment [5] would
address the constitutional concerns referenced in the legal
memo, dated April 15, 2024.
MS. RADFORD said there is a risk that even with Conceptual
Amendment [5], the bill could be found to be unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked Ms. Radford to elaborate on that.
MS. RADFORD explained that a court would consider certain
factors, such as the forum where the speech takes place, whether
the government restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve a
significant government interest, and whether there are alternate
channels for the communication of information, when determining
whether a free speech violation occurred either as the statute
is written or as it is applied to certain conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said he did not see the need to delete
language that, he believes, is not vague, as similar ordinances
were upheld by the Eight Circuit in Langford.
CHAIR VANCE recalled a scenario in which individuals chained
themselves to the door of a building that was being used to
convene a special session of the Alaska State Legislature in
Wasilla. She asked whether that situation could be deemed an
unreasonable inconvenience.
MS. MILLS said the law is based on a reasonableness standard,
which is an objective standard that already exists in state law
and therefore, could be easily implemented by law enforcement.
6:25:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that as written, the bill
would make it so a person's First Amendment right is subjected
to law enforcement's opinion on what is considered inconvenient,
which he deemed "wide open for vagueness" and completely
unreasonable.
MS. MILLS, in response to a question from Representative Groh,
said she found no Alaska Supreme Court Cases that would indicate
that this case would be treated differently than the cases cited
in the legal memo.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether the Alaska Supreme Court
considers itself governed in its interpretation of the Alaska
Constitution by federal courts rulings on the similar provisions
in the U.S. Constitution.
MS. RADFORD said it was more efficient to look at the federal
record on these issues.
6:30:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said he strongly objects to Conceptual
Amendment [5] because the bill clearly states that a reasonable
person must think that they're causing these issues.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER reiterated that what's inconvenient to
one person may not be inconvenient to another.
6:32:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD pointed out that discretion is left up to
law enforcement on many issues. She shared an example.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER opined that what constitutes total
impassability is vaguer than the language in the bill.
6:33:35 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Carpenter, Gray,
and Groh voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 5.
Representatives C. Johnson, Sumner, Allard, and Vance voted
against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 5 failed by a vote
of 3-4.
6:34:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY posed a hypothetical scenario and shared his
understanding that a person who created a Facebook post
encouraging people to protest could be held liable to a minimum
fine of $10,000.
MS. RADFORD said the civil liability provision in AS 09.65.360,
subsection (c) could expose a person to liability for sharing
information about a protest that results in the obstruction of
free passage regardless of whether the person attended
themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY suggested that this section could inhibit a
person's free speech on social media.
MS. RADFORD acknowledged that there is a risk that exposing a
person to liability under this section for the sharing of
information could be considered an unconstitutional infringement
on free speech.
6:37:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER shared his understanding that to be held
liable under this section, a person would need to instruct
protesters to block a highway, for example, and that a person
would not be liable for simply advertising a protest.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY read the following statement from the legal
memo: "without any requirement that the person know that an
obstruction is a likely or even possible result". He emphasized
that the person would not need to know whether obstruction is
possible.
6:39:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether a disclaimer on the Facebook
post would help.
MS. RADFORD said is unsure whether a disclaimer on a post that
shares information would be sufficient in preventing liability.
6:39:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked Ms. Mills to speak to this section.
MS. MILLS read subsection (a) on page 2 of the bill, emphasizing
that conduct referred to in subsection (b) is the obstruction,
not the protest. She indicated that the Facebook post would
need to specifically encourage obstruction.
6:42:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH suggested that subsection (e) would appear
to allow any person anywhere in the world to be hailed into
court in Alaska for little more than encouraging speech or
activity in Alaska. He asked whether the provision would meet
constitutional requirements in terms of jurisdiction.
MS. MILLS reiterated that the conduct is obstruction, not
speech. She explained that the provision is a long-arm statute
that allows outsiders to be held liable inside the state for
actions that have a nexus to the state. She added that DOL has
no constitutional concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH directed the question to Ms. Radford.
MS. RADFORD did not know the answer and offered to follow up
with the requested information.
6:44:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER pointed out that bill speaks to
unreasonable inconveniences, in addition to obstruction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked Ms. Mills to define "jointly and
severally liable."
MS. MILLS said it's a way to apply one set of damages to a group
of defendant parties.
6:46:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY posed a hypothetical example involving the
obstruction of a neighborhood park. He remarked, "I just don't
see how saying on Facebook that there's ... going to be this
protest at this park ... how that person has not encouraged
someone to engage in that conduct, even though they didn't know
that so many people were going to show up and that the park was
going to be completely unusable to that family."
MS. MILLS highlighted the importance of the word "knowingly,"
and reiterated that the Facebook post would need to encourage
the conduct of making something impassable.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked Ms. Radford whether she made a mistake
in her legal memo by stating that the person doesn't have to
know that his/her encouragement of this protest would result in
obstruction.
MS. RADFORD said she did not make a mistake. She shared her
understanding that the knowing component would be for the person
who obstructs access in violation of statute.
6:49:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY reiterated his concern that by his reading
of subsection (b) on page 2, the person posting on Facebook
could be held liable.
MS. MILLS emphasized that the intent was never to hold someone
civilly liable for supporting a protest. She agreed that the
"knowingly" lies on the entities that are obstructing; however,
she reiterated that [the Facebook post] would need to be
encouraging the behavior of obstruction.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY recalled that during the previous bill
hearing, the attorney general stated that a homeless person
sleeping on a sidewalk could be guilty of this crime.
MS. MILLS pointed out that with regard to homeless individuals,
the components of the crime would still need to be met.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked Ms. Mills to show the committee where
"knowingly" is in the bill.
MS. MILLS directed attention to page 4, line 10 of the bill.
6:52:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD opined that the law would not pertain to
social media if it's not referenced in the bill.
MS. MILLS said no, not under the circumstances that [the
committee] has been talking about.
6:54:07 PM
CHAIR VANCE asked how fire laws intersect with the obstruction
of free passage of public places.
MS. MILLS said it's never possible to name all the circumstances
or specificity in criminal law, which is why checks and balances
are important.
6:56:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked if someone is found civilly liable, it
also means that person committed the crime.
MS. MILLS answered yes, with one slight difference. In a
criminal case, allegations must be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt, whereas in a civil case, it's a preponderance of the
evidence. She added that just because a person is found
criminally liable, he/she may not necessarily be criminally
liable.
6:57:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY directed attention to subsection (b) on page
2 and sought to confirm that a person who indirectly encourages
people to participate in an event that results in obstruction
would be protected because they didn't "knowingly know it."
MS. MILLS responded, "Correct." She reiterated that "conduct"
is the operative word [in subsection (b)].
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether Ms. Radford agrees with Ms.
Mills' interpretation.
MS. RADFORD said ultimately, DOL would be the one bringing these
cases; however, she opined that the provision could be better
worded to negate any possible issues.
6:59:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH directed attention to Section 4 and asked
Ms. Mills whether she agrees that this new framework for civil
action is different than existing Alaska law.
MS. MILLS answered yes, these specific damages provisions are a
unique construct.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked Ms. Mills to describe the relationship
between the interplay of the following mental states: knowingly
and strict liability.
MS. MILLS contended that this is not a unique component of the
bill. She explained that if the elements of the crime are met
in a civil context, strict liability would apply.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked for a more specific example.
7:02:17 PM
PARKER PATTERSON, Attorney, Legislation, Regulations &
Legislative Research Section, Department of Law, described the
strict liability standard and explained that if the law was
violated, the plaintiff would not need to show that it was
negligently violated.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH directed the question to Ms. Radford.
MS. RADFORD said she had nothing to add.
CHAIR VANCE sought final comments from committee members.
7:06:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his belief that there are real
constitutional concerns with this bill. Ultimately, he said he
worries about people's freedom of speech and ability to protest,
and that the law could be implemented against some people and
not others. He characterized the bill as a solution looking for
a problem.
7:07:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said he objected to the bill moving
from committee today. He explained that there are parts of the
bill that he wholeheartedly supports; however, because the bill
deals with constitutional rights and a situation that is ripe
for abuse under certain circumstances, he said he would err on
the side of caution, adding that he was not willing to support
it in its current fashion.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said he associated himself with the comments
made by both Representative Gray and Representative Carpenter.
He stated that he has substantial constitutional and practical
concerns about the provisions in the legislation regarding both
criminal and civil liability.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD said she disagrees with some members'
interpretations. She expressed her support for the bill and its
intent.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER pointed out the term "inconvenient" is
used elsewhere in Alaska Statutes.
CHAIR VANCE agreed that certain words are concerning; however,
one person's constitutional right does not supersede another's.
She pointed out that it is the government's job to provide for
public safety and prevent obstruction that can cause harm to
individuals. She shared her belief that when people are
intentionally disregarding the rights of other citizens, the
government needs to step in.
7:16:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to report HB 386, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. She gave Legislative Legal Services permission to
make technical and conforming changes as necessary.
[An inaudible objection was made by a committee member.]
7:16:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives C. Johnson, Sumner,
Allard, and Vance voted in favor of reporting HB 386, as
amended, from committee. Representatives Carpenter, Gray, and
Groh voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 386(JUD) was reported
out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
7:17:27 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 7:17 p.m. to 7:23 p.m.
HB 105-SEX/REPRODUCTION EDUCATION; SCHOOLS
7:23:02 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to parental rights in a
child's education; relating to access to school records;
relating to sex education, human reproduction education, and
human sexuality education; relating to school disciplinary and
safety programs; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee, adopted as the working document on 4/15/24, was
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 105, Version 33-
GH1072\O, Bergerud, 4/13/24 ("Version O").]
REPRESENTATIVE GROH moved to adopt Amendment 2 to Version O,
labeled 33-GH1072\O.7, Bergerud, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 3, following line 13:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) A school district shall maintain a database
of which pronouns are approved to use in reference to
each student. The department shall regularly audit the
database for compliance with AS 14.03.016(a)(7)."
[An inaudible objection was made by a committee member.]
7:23:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH explained that Amendment 2 would require
school districts to maintain a database of approved pronouns.
It would also require that the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) regularly audit the database for compliance
with the law.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER opined that Amendment 2 sounds like a
tremendous waste of money.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD agreed that another database would not be
necessary.
7:25:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY suggested that the database could be helpful
in preventing teachers from being sued for using the wrong
pronoun.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH urged the committee's support of Amendment
2, which would address a gap in the law to make it more workable
in attaining its goal.
7:27:10 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Allard, Carpenter, C.
Johnson, Sumner, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-5.
7:27:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Version
O, labeled 33-GH1072\O.8, Bergerud, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 3, following line 13:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) A local school board shall, in consultation
with parents, teachers, and school administrators,
adopt policies recognizing the constitutional rights
of persons who are not school district employees when
the persons are on school grounds and at school
events, including parents, students, and visitors, to
exercise speech unconstrained by proscriptive or
restrictive speech requirements, including the use of
preferred pronouns."
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD objected.
7:27:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER explained that Amendment 1 would insert
a new subsection (g). He indicated that the proposed amendment
would emphasize the constitutional rights of visitors and
parents who are not employees of the school district.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked for an example of Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER stated that parents and students would
retain their First Amendment rights to recognize or not
recognize [the preferred pronouns] as long as it's not impolite
or offensive.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said he would not want to give visitors
the right to scream pronouns in his child's kindergarten class.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said that is not the intent of
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said if that is not the intent, then
perhaps the language should be changed to reflect that.
7:33:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY pointed out that politeness is not a
requirement. He asked whether unpolite speech would also be
protected by Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed his hoped that school policy
would require students and teachers to be polite to each other,
and that it would not need to be prescribed in state law. He
said Amendment 1 is intended to protect parents and visitors
from being forced into using pronouns "that don't make any
sense."
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether visitors would be held liable
for failing to use the preferred pronouns without Amendment 1.
7:35:57 PM
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Division Operations Manager, Innovation and
Education Excellence, Department of Education and Early
Development, deferred to a legal expert.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked Legislative Legal Services whether
visitors would be expected to follow school rules without
Amendment 1.
7:37:35 PM
MARGARET BERGERUD, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, said currently, visitors have First Amendment
rights to address individuals in their preferred manner. She
shared her understanding that schools cannot enforce the use of
preferred names or pronouns on visitors. She added that it's
reasonable to assume that most schools have community standards
and community guidelines that enforce some sort of politeness
standard.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER clarified that nothing in the bill would
create individual liability.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD said that by her reading of Amendment 1,
parents and students would be able to call another student
anything they want.
7:40:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER directed attention to page 2,
[paragraph] 7, and asked whether it would be possible for a
school district to create a school policy that requires students
to refer to other students and/or teachers by their preferred
pronouns.
MS. RIDDLE answered yes, school districts can make policy about
managing communication between students and teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER stated that Amendment 1 is trying to
get at that very thing.
7:42:45 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 7:42 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.
7:45:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
1 to strike "including" on line 7 and replace it with
"regarding."
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD objected.
7:46:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER explained that without making this change,
schools would not be able to restrict speech in any manner. He
opined that visitors should not have an unconstrained right to
free speech and scream obscenities in a kindergarten class, for
example, nor should school districts be required to adopt such a
policy.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked what action a teacher would take if a
student insists on using pronouns other than the approved
pronouns.
MS. BERGERUD said if Version O were to become law, teachers
would be bound to use the pronouns on the permission slip.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether teachers would be required to
notify the parents in this scenario.
MS. BERFERUD stated that there is no parental notification
requirement in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said he recognized Conceptual Amendment
1 as a friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD removed her objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was
adopted.
7:51:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER removed his objection to Amendment 1, as
amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY objected.
7:51:50 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Allard, Carpenter,
C. Johnson, Sumner, and Vance voted in favor of Amendment 1, as
amended. Representatives Groh and Gray voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, passed by a vote of 5-2.
7:52:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said he would not be offering Amendment 3.
7:52:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY said he would not be offering Amendment 4.
He moved to adopt Amendment 5 to Version O, labeled 33-
GH1072\O.9, Bergerud, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 1, line 5, following "prevention;":
Insert "relating to required education for
children committed to the custody of the Department of
Family and Community Services;"
Page 5, following line 22:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) Notwithstanding AS 14.03.016(a)(2) and (3)
and (e) of this section, a school shall ensure that a
child committed to the custody of the Department of
Family and Community Services receives
(1) sex education, human reproduction
education, and human sexuality education under this
section;
(2) sexual abuse and sexual assault
awareness and prevention education under AS 14.30.355;
and
(3) teen dating violence and abuse
awareness and prevention education under
AS 14.30.356."
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD objected.
7:52:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained that Amendment 5 would require
children in the custody of the Office of Childrens Services
(OCS), [Department of Family and Community Services], to receive
comprehensive sex education, Bree's Law, and Aaron's Law.
7:53:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked what age group this would apply
to.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY answered that age group covered by the bill.
7:53:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked at what age these kids would be
taught this comprehensive sex education.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked Ms. Riddle what age children were
taught Aaron's Law and Bree's Law.
MS. RIDDLE offered to follow up with the requested information.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY directed the question to Ms. Bergerud.
MS. BERGERUD did not know the answer.
7:55:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER, citing page 5, subsection (f), shared
his understanding that the required training would not apply to
kindergarteners. Nonetheless, he asked whether Amendment
Kindergarten; he asked whether Amendment 5 would apply to all
other age groups.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY said the intent is not to expand sex
education to new age groups. He clarified that the intent of
Amendment 5 is to ensure that children in the custody of OCS are
receiving this education and cannot be opted out by a foster
parent.
7:57:02 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
in favor of Amendment 5. Representatives Allard, Carpenter, C.
Johnson, Sumner, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 2-5.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY said he would not be offering Amendment 6.
CHAIR VANCE sought questions on Version O, as amended.
7:58:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY directed attention to page 2, lines 21-26 of
the bill, and asked whether children could still be referred to
by their peers by their preferred pronouns even if those
pronouns differ from the ones on the permission slip.
MS. BERGERUD answered yes, that is a fair characterization.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY sought to confirm that as long as the school
employees follow the names on the permission slip, there's no
need for parents to be notified that the child is using a
different name or pronoun.
MS. BERGERUD said there's nothing in this bill that would
require that sort of notification.
8:00:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD directed attention to page 2, line 24, and
asked whether schools could be sued by not enforcing the
permission slips.
MS. BERGERUD clarified that her answer about parental
notification was intended to be limited to a student that is
going by a different set of names or pronouns amongst their
peers.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD disagreed with Ms. Bergerud's
interpretation. She asserted that the school would be required
to notify the parents if the child is being referred to by
something other than the names or pronouns on the permission
slip.
8:02:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER shard his understanding that Section 7
only refers to the pronoun used by the public school to address
or refer to the child in person and makes not reference to peer
groups. He opined that this section is inadvisable because if a
parent changes the child's preferred name to "attack
helicopter," that parent could proceed to sue the school if a
teacher does not properly use that name. He added that he is
unclear about the goal.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked Mr. Ballinger whether schools would
be required to notify the parents if a student is being called
anything other than the names or pronouns identified on the
permission slip and there would be a right to pursue legal
action.
8:05:02 PM
BOB BALLINGER, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State
Legislature, said the question would be how widespread that is.
He shared his understanding that if a different name is being
used by the peer group and it's not that widespread, then the
bill would not require specific notification. Conversely, if
the school is using that name, then the parents should be
notified.
8:06:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY posed a hypothetical scenario in reference
to page 2, line 4 of Version O. If the U.S. Secretary of
Transportation, Pete Buttigiege, were speaking to an elementary
school and mentioned that he has a husband, he asked whether
that would be considered a "matter of sexuality" and require a
signed permission slip.
MR. BALLINGER answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether parents have rights if their
child is not using the name or pronouns on the permission slip.
MS. RIDDLE did not know the answer.
8:10:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD referred to lines 21-26 and asked whether
the school district would have a legal obligation to inform the
parents if their child is not being called by the parent
requested name.
MS. BERGERUD shared her understanding that parents' rights would
be violated if the school employees were not following the
permission slips; however, peers would not be bound by anything
in these provisions, which could change depending on which
regulations were adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether the school would be
violating the law if the school knows that students are calling
the child by something other than the name requested by the
parents.
MS. BERGERUD answered no, because the language says, "used by a
public school" as opposed to "used in a public school."
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD disagreed with Ms. Bergerud's
interpretation and opined that the school would be obligated to
inform the parents in writing of the right to pursue legal
action against the school district.
8:15:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH referenced the high rates of child sexual
abuse, sexual assault, sexually transmitted diseases, and
unintended pregnancies in Alaska and asked how the legislation,
which creates barriers to student access to sex education, would
improve those health outcomes.
MS. RIDDLE pointed out that curriculum choices lie with the
district.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said the bill would change Alaska law from
opt out to opt in, thereby reducing access to sex education. He
asked whether [the state] would be going in the wrong direction
by cutting off this access to school age children who could
benefit from it.
MS. RIDDLE declined to talk about policy. She reiterated that
the department would create regulations in the best interest of
the students if this law were to pass.
8:19:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said he agreed with certain parts of the
bill; however, he highlighted several problems with the bill,
including Section 3 and how it interacts with Section 1.
CHAIR VANCE invited Mr. Ballinger to provide closing remarks and
to address Representative Groh's question.
MR. BALLINGER explained that opt-in requirements ensure that
there is contact with the parents. He emphasized the importance
of engaging parents in the process for students' successful
outcomes.
8:23:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked what means a school district has to
force a child to use a certain name or pronoun. He shared his
belief that the opt-in requirement would result in fewer people
receiving this very necessary education, as it's easy to miss
permission slips to opt in. Lastly, he asked what problems the
bill seeks to solve.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said he likes the truancy provision, which
addresses a real problem in Alaska. Based on his experience as
a prosecutor, he expressed concern that the bill would lead to
negative outcomes and as a result, he said he would not be
supporting the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said he hopes that the bill could
reverse the trend of parents pulling their kids from schools for
alternative sources of education, citing the opt-in provision
specifically.
CHAIR VANCE stated that the bill would reaffirm the rights of
the parents and encourage relationships. She expressed her hope
that the opt-in provision would open a dialogue between teachers
and parents who do not opt in, and that teachers would be
looking for cues and signals of abuse.
8:30:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to report CSHB 105, Version 33-
GH1072\O, Bergerud, 4/13/24, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH objected.
8:30:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Allard, Carpenter,
C. Johnson, Sumner, and Vance voted in favor of reporting
Version O, as amended, from committee. Representatives Gray and
Groh voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 105(JUD) was reported
out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
8:31:23 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:31 p.m. to 8:38 p.m.
HB 338-PHYS LBLTY: GENDER TRANS PROCEDURE;MINORS
8:38:06 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 338, "An Act relating to physician liability for
gender transition procedures performed on minors; and providing
for an effective date."
[Because of their length, some amendments discussed or adopted
during the meeting are found at the end of the minutes for HB
338. Shorter amendments are included in the main text.]
8:38:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 338,
labeled 33-LS1392\A.5, Gunther, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "gender transition"
Insert "certain"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
LEGISLATIVE FINDING. The legislature finds that
the average prevalence of surgical regret for all
surgeries received by all people is 14.4 percent,
while the average prevalence of surgical regret for
gender affirming surgeries received by transgender and
gender diverse individuals is less than one percent."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 15:
Delete "gender transition"
Insert "certain"
Page 2, line 16, following the second occurrence of
"a":
Insert "surgical procedure or"
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER objected.
8:38:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY stated that Amendment 1 would extend the
bill to all forms of surgery.
8:38:52 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
8:39:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY opined that Amendment 1 would make the bill
more applicable to Alaskans, as they do not receive gender
affirming surgery in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether gender affirming surgery or
home therapy is viewed as a casual matter in Representative
Gray's experience.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained that he was unable to comment on
the surgery because it is not provided in Alaska. Nonetheless,
he said hormone therapy is not considered casual in his
experience.
8:46:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER wondered whether, by passing Amendment 1,
few pediatric surgeons would be willing to practice in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared her understanding that two major
hospitals in Anchorage wanted to perform [gender affirming]
surgeries on children and adults, which was stopped due to
ethical concerns. She maintained her opposition to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY agreed with Representative Sumner that
allowing children who underwent all kinds of surgery to sue for
regret years later would have a chilling effect on pediatric
surgery. He reiterated that the point of Amendment 1 is to make
the bill applicable to Alaskans, adding that if trans kids can
sue in the future, then all kids should be able to sue in the
future.
8:48:22 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Sumner, Allard,
Carpenter, C. Johnson, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 2-5.
8:48:52 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
8:49:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 338,
labeled 33-LS1392\A.6, Gunther, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "gender transition"
Insert "certain"
Page 2, line 15:
Delete "gender transition"
Insert "certain"
Page 2, line 17, following "transition":
Insert "or cosmetic plastic surgery"
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD objected.
8:49:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY explained that Amendment 2 would extend
liability to physicians to perform cosmetic surgery on minors.
8:50:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said he would be inclined to support
Amendment 2, except that it includes cosmetic surgeries for
reconstructive purposes and many other inadvisable things.
8:50:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked whether the doctor or the
parents would be held liable.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD said the argument is that cosmetic surgery
should have the same accountability as an untested, unproven
medical procedure. She opined that children should not be
victims of untested procedures and pointed out that cosmetic
surgeries like rhinoplasty and breast reductions have all been
proven. She maintained her opposition to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY clarified that the bill wouldn't ban these
procedures. Instead, it would allow regretful patients to sue
within 20 years. He explained that "top surgery," which is a
mastectomy, for a female to male transgender person is not an
untested procedure. Further, he argued that thousands of teen
girls get breast implants and that those women should be able to
sue for liability if they were regretful.
8:54:43 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives C. Johnson, Sumner,
Allard, Carpenter, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-5.
8:55:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 338,
labeled 33-LS1392\A.3, Gunther, 4/16/24, which read:
Page 1, line 2, following "minors;":
Insert "relating to casualty insurance policies
for services rendered by physicians;"
Page 2, following line 21:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 21.96 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 21.96.130. Gender transition procedure
liability. A casualty insurance policy offered by an
insurer for services rendered by a physician licensed
under AS 08.64 may not exclude coverage for claims
arising under AS 09.65.175. In this section, "casualty
insurance" has the meaning given in AS 21.12.070."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON objected.
8:55:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH explained that Amendment 3 states that
casualty insurance policy offered by an insurer for services
rendered by a physician licensed may not exclude coverage for
claims arising under the civil liability provision of the
proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said he opposed Amendment 3 because it
could cause a substantial increase in physician malpractice
insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said Representative Sumner's point makes the
point. He explained that the proposed legislation would create
a "giant tail" of liability with a 20-year statute of
limitations. For that reason, he said it only seems fair to
make that an insurable risk.
8:57:57 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives C. Johnson, Sumner,
Allard, Carpenter, and Vance voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-5.
8:58:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 338,
labeled 33-LS1392\A.2, Gunther, 4/5/24. [Amendment 4 is
provided at the end of the minutes on HB 338.]
REPRESENTATIVE GROH objected.
8:59:21 PM
MR. BALLINGER explained that Amendment 4 does the following:
requires the Alaska State Medical Board to develop a
standardized consent form; adds a criminal element to performing
these procedures on minors; creates a new section that develops
the standardized informed consent for sex reassignment
procedures; defines sex reassignment treatments or procedures
and inserts this term in place of "gender transition"; removes
the ability for a minor to consent to sex reassignment
treatments or procedures; outlines exceptions to liability; and
makes it crime for physicians to perform the sex reassignment
treatments or procedures on minors or individuals over 18 years
of age without informed consent with a penalty of a class C
felony.
9:05:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH pointed out that Amendment 4 is three times
longer than the actual bill and suggested that the sponsor
should prepare a committee substitute instead. He shared his
belief that considering this amendment in its current form
without the aid of Legislative Legal Services or a sponsor
substitute is not the way to go.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked whether the transition regulation
language and the adoption of a new class C felony would add a
fiscal note to the bill.
MR. BALLINGER shared that the Department of Law (DOL) said there
would be no new fiscal impact on the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER pointed out that Amendment 4 directs the
State Medical Board to adopt regulations establishing standards
of care and asked whether the Department of Health (DOH) had
been contacted.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD answered no and maintained that DOL had
said the proposed amendment would not trigger a fiscal note.
9:08:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY said it would be a surprise to him if
standardized informed consent forms weren't already being used
in Alaska clinics with regard to this kind of treatment.
MR. BALLINGER clarified that the bill would require one
consistent with this code section.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether it was the bill sponsor's
belief that current consent practices are inadequate, and that
additional government interference is necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared her belief that yes, the government
needs to step in to hold doctors accountable.
9:10:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether Amendment 4 intended for the
Alaska State Medical Board to craft the standardized informed
consent form to be completed by the physician prior to starting
treatment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD answered yes, and shared her understanding
that it would not create an additional cost.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY expressed concern that the board may not
have anyone serving on it who had performed this type of
treatment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD acknowledged that this is unchartered
territory that needs to be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY argued that this is not unchartered
territory and that standardized informed consent forms had been
used for decades.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether Amendment 4 would carry a risk
of violating equal protection laws or the right to privacy in
the Alaska Constitution.
9:13:53 PM
CONRAN GUNTHER, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, answered yes, as this is a rapidly developing area of
law. He said there would be a risk of creating an equal
protection violation and the Alaska Constitution's right to
privacy clause.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked if the bill were adopted and
deemed unconstitutional, whether those portions would be struck
down and the rest would remain.
MR. GUNTHER answered yes and cited the generalized severability
clause in Alaska Statutes.
9:15:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 4 to delete all content on page 5 line 16 and delete
the words "over 18 years of age" on line 17.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD objected.
9:16:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his belief that it should be a crime
to perform a sex transition procedure on anyone without their
permission.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether it's already illegal to
perform any surgery without written consent.
MR. GUNTHER said he was unsure about written consent, but
informed consent is a standard requirement in medical procedures
to give the patients understanding of what they're agreeing to.
CHAIR VANCE clarified that the intent of Conceptual Amendment 1
is already written in the bill on page 5, line 17.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his understanding that the bill would
criminalize all sexual reassignment treatments or procedures on
minors, and the intent of Conceptual Amendment 1 is to ensure
that it can't be done one anyone without informed consent.
9:21:27 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gray and Groh voted
in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 4.
Representatives Allard, Carpenter, C. Johnson, Sumner, and Vance
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-5.
9:22:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON said he had a real problem with
criminalizing this activity and taking away a doctor's
livelihood; furthermore, he disagreed with DOL and shared his
belief that Amendment 4 would require a fiscal note. If the
bill passes, he suggested that the chair might consider holding
the bill in her office and allow for a fiscal note to be
drafted, specifically by the Department of Health and Social
Services.
9:25:15 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:25 p.m. to 9:28 p.m.
9:28:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD withdrew Amendment 4.
9:29:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether "gender transition procedure"
referred to surgical procedures only, or whether medication is
included as well.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD said medication is included. She deferred
to Mr. Ballinger.
9:29:53 PM
MR. BALLINGER stated that without [Amendment 4], which
incorporated definitions and some of the other procedures, he is
unsure how Alaska would answer that.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY opined that the word procedure implies
something beyond giving someone pills or medication.
9:31:42 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:31 p.m. to 9:39 p.m.
9:39:10 PM
CHAIR VANCE sought final comment on HB 338.
9:39:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH expressed concern that the bill has
constitutional infirmities and bad policy choices with the "20-
year tail" on the civil liability. He added that he could not
support HB 338.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY reiterated that gender affirming care
procedures are not performed in Alaska other than medication.
So, if the bill does not apply to medication, he stated that HB
338 does not have a lot of applicability in the state. Further,
he expressed concern about the 20-year statute of limitations
for civil liability. He opined that the bill would make it more
difficulty for well adjusted trans kids to get the healthcare
that they need.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER voiced his opinion that minors do not
have the capacity to consent legally or developmentally and
therefore, the doctor who is in a trusted position, should be
ultra cautious in his advice to the patient.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD said getting a tattoo at 16 is a bad idea,
and cutting off body parts is something that children should be
protected from. She shared her belief that the legislature
needs to stop [these procedures] before they come to Alaska,
adding that she stands by the protection of children.
9:44:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD moved to report HB 338 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH objected.
9:44:47 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Allard, Carpenter,
C. Johnson, Sumner, and Vance voted in favor of reporting HB 338
from committee. Representatives Gray and Groh voted against it.
Therefore, HB 338 was reported out of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
9:45:55 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
AMENDMENTS
The following amendment to HB 338 was moved for adoption during
the hearing. [Shorter amendments are provided in the main text
only.]
Amendment 4 [33-LS1392\A.2, Gunther, 4/5/24]:
Page 1, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "physician liability for gender transition
procedures performed on minors;"
Insert "physician liability for sex-reassignment
treatments or procedures performed on minors;
establishing the crime of criminal sex-reassignment
treatment or procedure; relating to standardized
informed consent forms for sex-reassignment treatments
or procedures; relating to the duties of the State
Medical Board; relating to informed consent for sex-
reassignment treatments or procedures performed on
minors;"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 08.64.101(a) is amended to read:
(a) The board shall
(1) except as provided in regulations
adopted by the board under (b) of this section,
examine and issue licenses to applicants;
(2) develop written guidelines to ensure
that licensing requirements are not unreasonably
burdensome and the issuance of licenses is not
unreasonably withheld or delayed;
(3) after a hearing, impose disciplinary
sanctions on persons who violate this chapter or the
regulations or orders of the board;
(4) adopt regulations ensuring that renewal
of licenses is contingent on proof of continued
competency on the part of the licensee;
(5) under regulations adopted by the board,
contract with private professional organizations to
establish an impaired medical professionals program to
identify, confront, evaluate, and treat persons
licensed under this chapter who abuse alcohol, other
drugs, or other substances or are mentally ill or
cognitively impaired;
(6) adopt regulations that establish
guidelines for a physician or physician assistant who
is rendering a diagnosis, providing treatment, or
prescribing, dispensing, or administering a
prescription drug to a person without conducting a
physical examination under AS 08.64.364; the
guidelines must include a nationally recognized model
policy for standards of care of a patient who is at a
different location than the physician or physician
assistant;
(7) require that a licensee who has a
federal Drug Enforcement Administration registration
number register with the controlled substance
prescription database under AS 17.30.200(n);
(8) create a standardized informed consent
form that complies with AS 08.64.135 for a patient to
complete before a physician performs a sex-
reassignment treatment or procedure.
* Sec. 2. AS 08.64 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 08.64.135. Standardized informed consent
form for sex-reassignment treatments or procedures.
The board shall require a physician to provide a
standardized informed consent form to a patient at
every visit for a sex-reassignment treatment or
procedure for a period of not less than one year. The
form must state the following in a font not smaller
than 14 points:
(1) the United States Food and Drug
Administration has not approved the use of puberty
blockers or the prescription or administration of
hormones or hormone antagonists for the purpose of
treating gender dysphoria or gender incongruence;
(2) governments of other countries,
including the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland,
have studied the use of puberty blockers and the
prescription or administration of hormones or hormone
antagonists and have concluded that there is no
reliable evidence to support the notion that the
potential benefits of these treatments outweigh the
risks; these governments instead recommend
psychotherapy as the first line of treatment for
minors with gender dysphoria;
(3) the use of puberty blockers or the
prescription or administration of hormones or hormone
antagonists for the purpose of treating gender
dysphoria or gender incongruence
(A) increases the risk that a minor will
become sterile, preventing future conception of a
child;
(B) carries the risk of physical harm,
including decreased bone density, heart disease,
stroke, and cancer;
(C) has unknown effects on the brain
development of minors.
* Sec. 3. AS 08.64.380 is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read:
(8) "sex-reassignment treatment or
procedure" has the meaning given in AS 11.41.240(d)"
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 4"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 09.55.556 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) An individual under 18 years of age may not
consent to a sex-reassignment treatment or procedure.
In this section, "sex-reassignment treatment or
procedure" has the meaning given in AS 11.41.240(d)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 15:
Delete "gender transition"
Insert "sex-reassignment treatments or"
Page 2, line 16:
Delete "A person"
Insert "(a) An individual"
Page 2, lines 16 - 17:
Delete "gender transition"
Insert "sex-reassignment treatment or"
Page 2, lines 20 - 21:
Delete "In this section, "physician" means a
person licensed as a physician under AS 08.64."
Page 2, following line 21:
Insert new material to read:
"(b) If an individual who received a sex-
reassignment treatment or procedure as a minor is
incompetent by reason of mental illness or mental
disability, the individual's parent or legal guardian
may bring an action under this section on behalf of
the individual.
(c) The cause of action created by this section
does not apply to a medical treatment or procedure to
treat an individual who was born with a medically
verifiable sexual development genetic disorder,
including
(1) ambiguous external biological sex
characteristics;
(2) a sexual development disorder
(A) caused by abnormal sex chromosome
structures, sex steroid production, or sex steroid
hormone action for the individual's sex; and
(B) discovered through genetic or
biochemical testing;
(3) an infection, injury, disease, or
disorder caused or exacerbated by a previous sex-
reassignment treatment or procedure; or
(4) a physical disorder, physical injury,
or physical illness that would place the individual in
imminent danger of death or impairment of a major
bodily function without the sex-reassignment treatment
or procedure.
(d) In this section,
(1) "minor" means an individual under 18
years of age who is not an emancipated minor;
(2) "physician" means a person licensed as
a physician under AS 08.64;
(3) "sex" means the classification of an
individual as male or female based on the individual's
reproductive role, indicated by the individual's sex
chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, and
internal and external genitalia present at birth;
(4) "sex-reassignment treatment or
procedure" has the meaning given in AS 11.41.240(d).
* Sec. 8. AS 11.41 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 11.41.240. Criminal sex-reassignment
treatment or procedure. (a) A person commits the crime
of criminal sex-reassignment treatment or procedure if
the person knowingly performs a sex-reassignment
treatment or procedure on
(1) a minor; or
(2) an individual over 18 years of age
without the voluntary, informed, and written consent
of the individual.
(b) For the purposes of this section, consent is
considered voluntary, informed, and written if, before
an individual's initial sex-reassignment treatment or
procedure, the physician performing the sex-
reassignment treatment or procedure, while physically
present in the same room as the individual,
(1) informs the individual of the nature
and risks of the sex-reassignment treatment or
procedure;
(2) provides the individual with a
standardized informed consent form created by the
State Medical Board under AS 08.64.101(a)(8); and
(3) receives the individual's written
acknowledgment that the individual received the
information required by this subsection.
(c) In a prosecution under this section, it is
an affirmative defense that the defendant is a
physician who provided a medical treatment or
procedure to treat
(1) a minor with ambiguous external
biological sex characteristics;
(2) a minor with a sexual development
disorder discovered through genetic or biochemical
testing, caused by abnormal sex chromosome structures,
sex steroid production, or sex steroid hormone action
for the sex of the minor at birth;
(3) an infection, injury, disease, or
disorder caused or exacerbated by a previous sex-
reassignment treatment or procedure; or
(4) a physical disorder, physical injury,
or physical illness that would place the individual in
imminent danger of death or impairment of a major
bodily function without the sex-reassignment treatment
or procedure.
(d) In this section,
(1) "minor" means an individual under 18
years of age who is not an emancipated minor;
(2) "physician" means a person licensed as
a physician under AS 08.64;
(3) "sex" means the classification of an
individual as male or female based on the individual's
reproductive role, indicated by the individual's sex
chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, and
internal and external genitalia present at birth;
(4) "sex-reassignment treatment or
procedure" means
(A) the prescription or administration of
puberty blockers for the purpose of delaying or
stopping puberty in an individual to affirm an
individual's perception of the individual's sex if
that perception is inconsistent with the individual's
sex;
(B) the prescription or administration of
hormones or hormone antagonists to affirm an
individual's perception of the individual's sex if
that perception is inconsistent with the individual's
sex;
(C) any surgical procedure used to affirm
an individual's perception of the individual's sex if
that perception is inconsistent with the individual's
sex.
(e) Criminal sex-reassignment treatment or
procedure is a class C felony.
* Sec. 9. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY. (a) AS 09.65.175, enacted by sec.
7 of this Act, applies to a sex-reassignment treatment
or procedure that began or was completed on or after
the effective date of this Act.
(b) AS 11.41.240, enacted by sec. 8 of this Act,
applies to an offense committed on or after the
effective date of this Act.
* Sec. 10. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
TRANSITION: REGULATIONS ON STANDARDS OF CARE.
Notwithstanding AS 09.55.556(c), enacted by sec. 6 of
this Act, AS 09.65.175, enacted by sec. 7 of this Act,
and AS 11.41.240, enacted by sec. 8 of this Act, the
State Medical Board shall adopt regulations
establishing standards of care under which a physician
may, for a period ending six months after the
effective date of this Act, under regulations adopted
by the State Medical Board, temporarily continue to
prescribe or administer a puberty blocker, hormone, or
hormone antagonist as part of a sex-reassignment
treatment or procedure for a minor patient whom the
physician began treating with the puberty blocker,
hormone, or hormone antagonist before the effective
date of this Act, for the sole purpose of reducing and
discontinuing the minor's use of the puberty blocker,
hormone, or hormone antagonist. In adopting
regulations under this section, the board shall
prioritize the provision of professional counseling
services for the patient during and after the
patient's use of the prescription treatment."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.