Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/11/1997 08:10 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 1997
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kim Elton
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to changing the rate of a tax or license that supports a
dedication of its proceeds.
- MOVED CSHJR 18(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 37
"An Act relating to a requirement that a parent, guardian, or
custodian consent before certain minors receive an abortion;
establishing a judicial bypass procedure by which a minor may
petition a court for authorization to consent to an abortion
without consent of a parent, guardian, or custodian; amending the
definition of `abortion`; and amending Rules 40 and 79, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508, and 512.5,
Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska
Administrative Rules."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 18
SHORT TITLE: DEDICATED FUNDS: RATE MAY BE CHANGED
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/29/97 164 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/29/97 164 (H) STA, HES, JUD, FINANCE
02/04/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/04/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 37
SHORT TITLE: PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY, KOHRING, VEZEY, MULDER, Ogan,
Dyson, Martin
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 37 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 37 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 37 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JUDITH KOEHLER, Senior Legislative Counsel
Americans United for Life
343 South Dearborn, Suite 1804
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Telephone: (312) 786-9494
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
DR. JAN WHITEFIELD, Medical Director
Alaska Women's Health Services
4115 Lake Otis Parkway
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 563-7228
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
THELMA HARTMAN, Director of Client Services
Crisis Pregnancy Center
1900 West Benson Blvd
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 258-0805
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
SUE DOGGETT
P.O. Box 190808
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
Telephone: (907) 248-3402
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
CAROL BEECHER
P.O. Box 1595
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-5668
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
BARBARA RAWALT
P.O. Box 823
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-1946
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
PEGGY SEELEY
P.O. Box 61661
Fairbanks, Alaska 99706
Telephone: (907) 479-5902
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
RUTH EWIG
2325 30th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-5538
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
LINDA BELDEN
P.O. Box 4174
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-7388
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
ELSIE O'BRYAN
P.O. Box 24
Houston, Alaska 99694
Telephone: (907) 892-6114
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
VIRGINIA PHILLIPS
404 Lake Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8024
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
EVE GARTNER, Staff Attorney
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy
500 East 8th Avenue, Suite 100
Denver, Colorado 80203
Telephone: (303) 839-1912
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
DAVID ROGERS, Representative
Alaska Women's Lobby
P.O. Box 33932
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 586-1107
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
SANDY HARBANUK
604 Fourth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2207
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
DR. CYNTHIA BROOKE
3340 Providence Drive, Suite 459
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 563-8588
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
KATHRYN CARSSOW
1335 "O" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 274-7909
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
JANET WALLACH
1315 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-8083
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
SID HEIDERSDORF
P.O. Box 658
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-9858
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
BETTY HALL, Member
Black Americans for Life
P.O. Box 22933
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4058
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
DR. BRUCE CHANDLER
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
Telephone: (907) 343-6718
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
EILEEN BECKER, Executive Director
Homer Crisis Pregnancy Center
P.O. Box 2
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7526
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
HUGH FLEISCHER
1401 West 11th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-2453
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
BRANT MCGEE, Head
Office of Public Advocacy
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 525
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-3500
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
ANGELA SALERNO, Executive Director
National Association of Social Workers Alaska Chapter
525 Main Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4438
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
PAULINE UTTER, Representative
Abortion Rights Project
P.O. Box 240667
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
Telephone: (907) 345-7980
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
JOHN MONAGLE, Representative
Alaskans For Life
P.O. Box 210527
Juneau, Alaska 99821
Telephone: (907) 789-5910
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
JANET MITSON
22611 Oak Knoll
Chugiak, Alaska 99567
Telephone: (907) 688-0116
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
THEDA PITTMAN
4720 Eagle Street Apartment No. 1
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-0515
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 8:10 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Berkowitz, Dyson, Hodgins, Ivan
and Vezey. The member absent was Elton.
HJR 18 - DEDICATED FUNDS: RATE MAY BE CHANGED
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HJR 18, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to changing the rate
of a tax or license that supports a dedication of its proceeds.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES explained the bill was brought up for
reconsideration at the last meeting so that it could be passed from
the committee today.
Number 0070
CHAIR JAMES explained a fiscal note of $3,000 was attached. That
would be the cost to put the proposal on the ballot. She asked
Representative Ivan to explain the bill for Representative Fred
Dyson, he was not at the meeting last week.
Number 0121
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN explained HJR 18 proposed an amendment to
Article IX of the Alaska State Constitution that allowed for a
dedication of a fund as long as it existed by April, 1956. The
resolution would allow for the changing of a rate of a tax or
license, of which, the proceeds were dedicated for a special
purpose. The resolution, if approved by the legislature, would be
placed before the voters at the next general election. It was
introduced because of the varying opinions represented by the
attorney general office regarding the dedication of a tax increment
for a specified purpose. The resolution was trying to avoid
litigation especially if the proceeds of the tobacco tax-CSHB
1(STA)-were to be placed in the school fund, or if the legislature
changed any other tax rate or license so that it was known which
proceeds would be placed into a dedicated fund. The resolution,
therefore, was a means to resolve that potential problem.
Number 0308
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS moved that CSHJR 18(STA) move from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
Number 0339
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY objected. A roll call vote was taken.
Representatives James, Berkowitz, Dyson, Hodgins and Ivan voted in
favor of the motion. Representative Vezey voted against the
motion. The CSHJR 18(STA) was passed out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 37 - PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 37, "An Act relating to a requirement
that a parent, guardian, or custodian consent before certain minors
receive an abortion; establishing a judicial bypass procedure by
which a minor may petition a court for authorization to consent to
an abortion without consent of a parent, guardian, or custodian;
amending the definition of `abortion`; and amending Rules 40 and
79, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508,
and 512.5, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska
Administrative Rules."
Number 0411
CHAIR JAMES explained the committee would take public testimony
today until 10:00 a.m. The bill was also scheduled for Thursday
February 13, 1997.
Number 0598
JUDITH KOEHLER, Senior Legislative Counsel, Americans United for
Life, was the first person to testify via teleconference in
Chicago. She explained Americans United for Life was a non-profit,
public interest law firm and educational organization. It had been
involved in virtually all abortion litigation in the United States
Supreme Court, including Roe v. Wade, since 1972. She was also a
former Illinois Legislator and state attorney, and had been
involved in all 50 states in drafting and defending parental
involvement statutes-both parental notice and parental consent.
Her testimony today would focus on the constitutionality of HB 37,
the interest of Alaska in passing such legislation, and the affect
upon teenage pregnancy, birth and abortion rates.
MS. KOEHLER cited Roe v. Wade and Dole v. Bolton court cases.
These two cases, she explained, gave a woman the right to an
abortion throughout all nine months of her pregnancy. House Bill
37 did not touch those lines of cases. Instead, it derived its
constitutionality from the Hodgson v. Minnesota case, Ohio case and
the Casey case. These three cases were litigated in the U.S.
Supreme Court and it held that parental involvement laws were
reasonably related to a state's interest in preserving parental
authority and protecting the health of minors without unduly
burdening their right to choose an abortion. House Bill 37 was
consistent with the laws that had been affirmed. Therefore, it
could be successfully litigated and enforced.
MS. KOEHLER further cited 34 states had parental involvement
legislation. However, 7 of the 34 states were unenforceable
because they did not include a judicial by-pass. Moreover, the
public supported parental involvement laws. A poll in Alaska last
year indicated that 78 percent of Alaskans supported parental
consent laws for a girl 16 years of age and under. She believed,
that same public support would be found for HB 37. It was also
consistent with the favorable support in the states of Iowa, Texas,
and Colorado.
MS. KOEHLER further stated 1.5 million abortions were performed in
1992, of which, 27 percent were performed on teenagers-10 to 17
years of age. Furthermore, 41 percent of teenagers aborted their
children, of which, only 45 percent told their parents and nearly
80 percent were performed in abortion clinics. And, one study
found that less than one-half of the abortion clinics required
parental notice for those 15 years of age and younger.
MS. KOEHLER further explained in Minnesota teenage pregnancy rates
were reduced by 25 percent after the parental notice law was
passed, teenage birth rates were reduced by 12.5 percent, and
teenage abortion rates were reduced by 27.4 percent. In essence,
she stated, passing a parental involvement law was good public
policy because it changed teenage behavior. That was the focus of
HB 37. She also cited in Pennsylvania, there was a 22.4 percent
decrease in teenage abortions after its law went into effect. In
Nebraska, there was a 23 percent reduction in abortions and teenage
birth rates after its law went into effect. And, in Mississippi,
similar statistics were also generated.
MS. KOEHLER further explained that ectopic pregnancies increased
after a woman underwent an abortion. There were also reports of
incompetent cervix complications, and the risk of breast cancer was
elevated by 30 percent. A study in Seattle, Washington, indicated
that a teenager who aborted her first pregnancy elevated her risk
of breast cancer by 150 percent. And, all of the participants who
had a family history of breast cancer, developed it by the age of
45. Teenagers did not have a good sense of their family medical
history and only parental involvement in their decisions would be
able to bring the health and medical factors to bear on their
decision.
MS. KOEHLER concluded by explaining a study in Finland that
indicated within one year after an abortion a woman was six times
more likely to commit suicide than a woman who carried her child to
term. In addition, she was three times more likely to commit
suicide compared to the general population of her own age group.
Adults must help a minor with her decision. "The medical
implications, the social implications all bring to bear with
respect to Alaska's interest in protecting a minor's health, in
protecting parental rights and fostering family unity."
Number 1138
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Ms. Koehler if she would comment on
the position of the American Medical Association (AMA) with respect
to parental consent?
Number 1152
MS. KOEHLER replied the American Association of Physicians and
Surgeons filed a brief that stated and recognized the importance of
the involvement of parents in medical treatments of minors,
especially surgical procedures. Abortion was the number one
elected surgery performed on women in the United States. The
association was composed of obstetricians, gynecologists, family
practitioners, and pediatricians who routinely provided medical
services to minors.
Number 1217
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Koehler if it was more
accurate to say that Roe v. Wade "acknowledged" the right's of
woman rather than "gave" them rights?
Number 1230
MS. KOEHLER replied, "That is correct. It was possible to have an
abortion performed."
Number 1235
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Koehler if there were any
circumstances where she would support a woman's right to choose?
Number 1242
MS. KOEHLER replied she was here to testify on HB 37. She believed
the bill did not interfere with a woman's right to choose an
abortion. Furthermore, no parental consent law that had been
successfully litigated in the United States Supreme Court unduly
burdened a woman's right to choose. In Roe v. Wade she was given
the right to have an abortion, and in Dole v. Bolton she was given
the right to an abortion throughout all nine months of her
pregnancy. House Bill 37 did not interfere with that right. It
derived from the successful litigation of laws in Minnesota, Ohio
and the Casey case that enabled a state to regulate the abortion
procedure on behalf of the health and welfare of its minors and
parental rights involved in a minor's decision.
Number 1300
CHAIR JAMES reminded Representative Berkowitz to keep his question
to HB 37 and to not ask personal questions of the testifiers. Ms.
Koehler was an expert witness here to talk about the facts and not
her beliefs.
Number 1312
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied if an expert witness was going to
testify the bias of the witness was important.
Number 1317
CHAIR JAMES replied not in testimony in the legislative arena.
Number 1326
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented Minnesota bordered other states
unlike Alaska. He asked Ms. Koehler if she knew how many pregnant
teenagers from Minnesota went to other states for an abortion?
Number 1341
MS. KOEHLER replied there was no indication from the information
because Minnesota was the first state to successfully litigate a
two-parent notice law with a judicial by-pass. In Mississippi, a
study indicated that some girls and adult women migrated to
surrounding states for an abortion, but those states also had
parental involvement laws of which they were required to meet. In
addition, in Minnesota, over a five year period, 3,573 girls filed
a petition for a judicial by-pass. Of the 3,573 petitions, 3,558
were granted, 6 were withdrawn, 9 were denied, of which, 1 was
appealed and affirmed.
Number 1464
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Koehler if she knew how many
women died of an illegal abortion in Minnesota after the law was in
effect?
Number 1472
MS. KOEHLER replied he assumed that all illegal abortions were
lethal, and that all legal abortions were safe. Statistics from
every state in the country indicated that women died of legal
abortions as well as illegal abortions.
Number 1492
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Koehler if she knew how many
people died from a legal abortion and how many died from an illegal
abortion in Minnesota?
Number 1500
MS. KOEHLER replied she could not give him that information because
it was not part of the reporting that was available at this moment.
Number 1560
DR. JAN WHITEFIELD, Medical Director, Alaska Women's Health
Services, was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. He stated he had counseled thousands of teens on
abortions in accordance with the current state law. The majority
had already consulted their parents, and in many cases their
parents came with them to help them through this difficult time.
The teens that did not come in came from dysfunctional homes who
could not deal with their parents, and most would be absolutely
intimidated to revert to the judicial by-pass. In addition, in the
time it would take them to deal with the judicial by-pass it would
delay their choice for an abortion and put them at a more advanced
gestations increasing their medical risk.
Number 1660
CHAIR JAMES commented testimony indicated that teenagers would be
intimidated by the judicial by-pass. She asked Dr. Whitefield to
explain how a judicial by-pass was different than counselling?
Number 1676
DR. WHITEFIELD replied it was how they got into the legal system.
It was the same as those that chose not to pursue state support for
a pregnancy because they were intimidated by the application
process. The Alaska Women's Health Services had tried and observed
the judicial by-pass and found that it was intimidating. There was
a lot of hesitancy surrounding the judicial by-pass option because
of the time involved. At the clinic, it was a one-on-one situation
with a thought in mind and the various options were presented such
as, adoption and abortion. He would like to link every unwed
teenager with a prospective adoptive parent, but very few people
invoked the adoption process and there was hesitancy surrounding
the judicial by-pass.
Number 1829
THELMA HARTMAN, Director of Client Services, Crisis Pregnancy
Center, was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. She supported HB 37. A girl 14 years of age could not
legally smoke, drink, drive or vote. Yet, she could have an
abortion that could change her life. She could experience
emotional and physical problems, such as, guilt, remorse, low self-
esteem and regret. "I have always been of the impression that the
laws were made to protect us. Do you feel that this is a
protective law, and who does it protect?" The purpose was to
protect the children, she answered. They needed the help of their
parents. This law would provide protection for them. They were
not mature enough to make a decision of this magnitude on their
own. In her experience, as a counsellor, she found that girls
regretted making such a decision in haste. Moreover, she cited a
survey that indicated 74 percent of the women interviewed would not
have an abortion again. Why would they say no? she asked. It was
because they experienced guilt, depression, regret, remorse and low
self-esteem. She encouraged the committee members to pass the
bill. It was a step in the right direction to protect the young
people.
Number 1960
SUE DOGGETT was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. She was opposed to HB 37. The statistics from other
states indicated that this type of legislation would neither help
family communication nor reduce teenage abortions and pregnancies.
In Michigan, a similar law was passed, and the teenage pregnancy
rate actually rose by over 5 percent. In Missouri, when a similar
law was passed, the girls went to Kansas to get an abortion. The
abortion rate in Kansas rose 62 percent. In Massachusetts, after
a similar law was passed, an average of 91 teenagers travelled to
other states per month. And, in the states of New York, Missouri
and Minnesota there was a substantial increase in late abortions.
Moreover, the bill would create a cost burden and a case load
burden on the courts. She wondered what the overall fiscal impact
would be because the courts were already over burdened. Was the
fiscal note was high enough? She further wondered if this piece of
legislation would affect other people's rights to a speedy trial.
The legislation was unnecessary and time could be spent on other
important issues that affected the majority of Alaskans. The
majority of Alaskans already consulted their parents. And, the
vast majority of girls who petitioned the courts were successful.
Therefore, the legislation appeared to be an attempt to get
teenagers to talk to their parents. This, she declared, should be
handled through good parenting skills that would include dialogue
about sex before marriage. Moreover, the legislation placed the
entire burden of the episode directly of the minds and shoulders of
the girls and their families. The males did not have to take any
responsibility for impregnating them.
Number 2094
CAROL BEECHER was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Cordova. She strongly supported HB 37. An abortion was a violent
procedure on the womb which had many proven health risks as well as
emotional impacts. A young girl, therefore, should be required to
consult her parents due to her highly emotional state. She
believed the primary responsibility of a child belonged to the
parents and not to the state. The parents were best suited to
advise their children. Moreover, abortion was big business. It
made sense that the abortion advocates would try to eliminate
parental involvement because this bill could possibly reduce
revenue. She reiterated it was important for the parents to be
involved in a life-long decision such as an abortion.
Number 2150
BARBARA RAWALT was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Delta Junction. She was testifying today as a parent of two adult
sons and one granddaughter. Parents had the right to know when a
crucial decision was about to be made. Parental consent was needed
for school field trips, for example. "Surely consent should be
needed for a surgical procedure, such as, an abortion." The risk
to the baby was obvious and immediate. And, as prior testimony
indicated, there were emotional and physical risks for the girl.
"For a parent to not be included in that decision makes absolutely
no sense to any thinking person." She urged the committee members
to vote, "yes."
Number 2205
PEGGY SEELEY was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Fairbanks. She supported HB 37. She wondered how many parents of
teenagers felt they were able to make a truly informed decision
about abortion on their own. And, how many responsible parents
would want their children to undergo an invasive and possibly life
threatening procedure without their knowledge and/or consent.
Currently, minors must have parental consent for any medical
procedure, other than an abortion. These laws were designed to
safeguard minors by involving their parents who cared the most
about them. A young woman facing a crisis pregnancy needed all the
help and emotional support she could get. She needed to know that
she was loved and supported by the most important people in her
life-usually her parents. A poll indicated that 74 percent to 80
percent of adults supported parental involvement. She reiterated
minors were not adults-legally, physically, emotionally or
psychology. "I urge you to protect the young women of Alaska and
to defend the rights of parents; to safeguard their under age
daughters. Please vote for House Bill 37."
Number 2264
RUTH EWIG was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Fairbanks. She completely supported HB 37 and complimented
Representative Pete Kelly and all the other pro-family legislators
in Juneau. Her 16 year old son felt it was ridiculous that an
abortion was possible without parental consent or involvement. She
called HB 37 a bill of compassion, love and protection for minors.
It was a shame that parents were required to give permission for a
minor to get her ear pierced, but not for an abortion. She also
agreed with prior testimony surrounding post abortion syndrome.
She asked the committee members to vote, "yes" on HB 37.
Number 2335
LINDA BELDEN was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Kenai. She supported HB 37 and the benefit of a judicial by-pass.
She called it a common sense law that was crucial for the
protection of minors. A minor needed parental consent to get her
ear pierced, for school field trips and for medication from a
school nurse. Moreover, the nation was also concerned about
teenagers smoking. "Surely if we are concerned about our teens
lungs, we must also be just as concerned about all other aspects of
their health including the effects of an abortion on her future
well-being and health." In regards to protecting a girl from
potential abusive situations, she asked, "Do we in turn protect
teens from potentially abusive situations by not sending home bad
report cards, by not informing parents of discipline problems at
school, or by not notifying parents of a minor's speeding ticker,
or by not arresting teens and informing the parents of teens who
have broken the law." She stated veterinarians were required to
get the permission and input from pet owners regarding the care of
their pet. Yet, "our own children can undergo a potentially
dangerous surgical procedure without the permission and input of
their parents. Certainly, our minor children should have more
consideration than a beloved family pet." Moreover, teenagers were
vulnerable to coercion and compromised decision making. Teenagers
were well known for making impulsive, ill-considered, and risky
decisions. Minors were called minors for a reason. In the Planned
Parent Hood v. Stanford case of 1976, the Supreme Court stated that
an abortion was a great decision for a girl of tender years under
emotional stress and could be ill-equipped to make a decision
without emotional support and advise. "Please pass the law."
Number 2455
ELSIE O'BRYAN was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Mat-Su. She referred the committee members to page 4, line 27, and
called the language frivolous allegations against the parents.
TAPE 97-10, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. O'BRYAN further referred the committee members to page 5 and
cited AS Sec. 18.16.030 (c). She was concerned that five days were
not realistic. The courts were full as earlier testimony
indicated. Was it enough time for a court to make a decision? she
asked. In addition, on page 5, line 10, she recommended changing
the language to include "denial" rather than "failure to act."
CHAIR JAMES announced to Ms. O'Bryan that the sponsor was here
today. He would take her concerns into account.
Number 0044
VIRGINIA PHILLIPS was the next person to testify via teleconference
in Sitka. She served on various boards, but was here today
testifying on behalf of herself. In every case that she had worked
with she saw the family bond strengthen when a minor told her
parents she was pregnant. Most parents loved and cared for their
children. Anything that weakened the bond between a parent and
child destroyed the family bond of trust. She could not conceive
why anyone would want to weaken that bond by helping a minor sneak
behind her parent's back for an abortion. "Remember, it is the
parents who are the ones that support their child's emotional and
physical problems after an abortion." She cited the increased risk
of breast cancer after terminating a first pregnancy with an
abortion. "Please pass House Bill 37 and thank you."
Number 0136
EVE GARTNER, Staff Attorney, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy
(CRLP), was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Colorado. She was opposed to HB 37. Attorneys at the center had
been involved in nearly every major United States Supreme Court
case involving abortion. It was currently challenging abortion
restrictions involving parental involvement laws, mandatory delays,
and numerous other governmental restrictions on access to abortion
across the country. It represented the plaintiff in the Mat-Su
Coalition for Choice v. Valley Hospital court case in Alaska. The
case was currently pending before the Alaska Supreme Court.
MS. GARTNER further stated HB 37 would make it a criminal offense
for a physician to perform an abortion on a woman under the age of
18, unless one of her parents consented to the procedure, or it was
authorized by a Superior Court Judge. Any person who failed to
comply with these requirements, faced imprisonment for up to five
years and a fine of up to $1,000. The center believed this bill
would place numerous and onerous burdens on young women who sought
abortions, and on doctors who performed abortions. House Bill 37
would undermine the rights of young women, particularly low-income
women, to make reproductive decisions. It would also discourage
abortions. Some doctors would even stop performing abortions due
to the threat of criminal penalties. Defeat of this bill was
necessary to ensure that young women would be able to continue to
obtain safe and legal medical care in Alaska. Moreover, this bill
was bad public health policy and it was unconstitutional. The
medical emergency exception was impermissible and narrow under
long-standing federal constitutional precedents. The judicial by-
pass procedure also failed to meet well-settled federal
constitutional standards. More importantly, HB 37 in its entirety,
was unconstitutional under the Alaska State Constitution which
explicitly protected an individual's right to privacy. The Alaska
Supreme Court had consistently held that this explicit privacy
guarantee provided more protection of individual rights than the
federal constitution. It had held that it protected an
individual's autonomy to make choices affecting his or her body and
personal life. It had also recognized that the right to privacy
provided protection for personal decisions about child bearing.
In addition, federal courts had upheld the constitutionality of
parental consent laws as long as they had adequate exceptions for
medical emergencies and a proper judicial by-pass procedure, of
which, HB 37 did not. It was very likely that the Alaska Supreme
Court would hold that HB 37 violated the state's constitutional
right to privacy because it interfered with the rights of young
women to make the private decision to terminate her pregnancy.
Furthermore, Alaska was one of only four states that had the free
standing right to privacy in its constitution. In Florida, the
supreme court relied on its privacy provision to strike down a
parental consent abortion law similar to HB 37. The state's
interest in protecting immature minors and preserving the family
unit were not sufficiently compelling to override what the court
called, "the substantial invasion" of the young woman's privacy
right created by the parental consent requirement. The center was
prepared to challenge this measure should it be enacted and,
regardless of the outcome, litigation would be expensive. In the
Mat-Su litigation the plaintiff's attorney had been awarded fees of
approximately $110,000 for just the Superior Court portion of the
case. If the center prevailed at the Supreme Court level it would
probably be entitled to additional fees. The center urged the
committee members to vote against HB 37.
Number 0363
DAVID ROGERS, Representative, Alaska Women's Lobby, was the first
person to testify in Juneau. He read the following statement into
the record:
"The Alaska Women's Lobby is a statewide advocacy organization
working toward expanded opportunities, equal access, and enhanced
representation for women. The Lobby is supported solely by
contributions. The Alaska Women's Lobby opposes House Bill 37. We
wholeheartedly encourage open and honest communication between
parents and their children, and support efforts to prevent teenage
pregnancy. However, we don't believe that HB 37 will accomplish
either of those goals.
"Responsible parents should be involved when their young daughters
face crisis pregnancies. It is the hope of every parent that a
child confronting this crisis will seek the advice and counsel of
those who care for her most and know her best. In fact, most young
women do turn to their parents when they are considering an
abortion. Unfortunately, some women cannot or will not because
they come from homes where physical violence or emotional abuse are
prevalent or because their pregnancy is the result of incest or
rape.
"The government can't force healthy family communication where it
doesn't already exist. Ironically, laws mandating parental notice
or consent can actually harm the young women they are trying to
protect by increasing illegal and self-induced abortion, family
violence, suicide, later abortions and unwanted childbirth. These
concerns are shared by the American Medical Association and the
American Academy of Pediatrics.
"But, doesn't HB 37 solve these well recognized, documented
problems by allowing teens to ask a judge for permission to
terminate their pregnancy as an alternative to parental consent?
We don't think so.
"For most adults, going to court for any purpose is difficult. For
teens, it can be overwhelming and at times impossible, especially
under these circumstances. Assuming they have reasonable access to
a court in the first place, some young women will not go or delay
going because they fear that the proceedings are not confidential
or that they will be recognized by people at the courthouse. Many
will experience general fear and distress or will not want to
reveal intimate details of their personal lives to strangers.
Others won't be able to attend hearings because they are in school.
Still others, victims of rape or incest, will fear the consequences
of possibly having to identify the perpetrators who, under state
law, must then be reported to the proper authorities.
"And if they do eventually find the courage to go to court, even
with the tight deadlines proposed in this bill, the time it takes
to schedule the proceeding and obtain a decision (not to mention
appeals) may result in delays that significantly increase the
health risks of the procedure.
"We understand and sympathize with the goals of HB 37's sponsors
and supporters. In a perfect world, all children should talk to
their parents before any decisions are made about a teenage
pregnancy; and, in fact, most do. But this is not a perfect world.
For a wide variety of reasons, many young women will not or cannot
talk to their parents or a judge about this unique, very personal
and very difficult decision.
"Unfortunately, instead of transforming dysfunctional families into
stable ones HB 37 may force many teens-faced with two equally
unacceptable options-to have their step-father's or rapist's
children, to risk their lives by having illegal or self-induced
abortions or to suffer with the results of exacerbating an already
troubled or dangerous home life. That is a pretty dear price to
pay for a message that may not be heard.
"For those reasons, the thousands of Alaskans represented by the
Alaska Women's Lobby oppose HB 37."
Number 0504
SANDY HARBANUK was the next person to testify in Juneau. She was
uncomfortable testifying today because she was going to talk about
things that she had never talked to anybody else about before. She
explained she grew up in an abusive family. She was concerned
about the children having to prove there was a pattern of physical,
sexual or emotional abuse to the court. She never told anybody
about her abuse at home; she never told her teacher, the school
nurse, or her husband of 18 years. If she had faced a pregnancy as
a teenager, she would not have told her parents nor would she have
gone before a judge to convince him what her home life was like.
The judge would have been another authority figure to her. "Once
you tell people things then there is a burden on their part. What
are they going to do with that information." She would have tried
to go to another state for an abortion, the self-induced method or
suicide. Those would have been her only options. She currently
worked as an historical researcher and was well aware that there
was nothing new that happened on the face of the earth. There were
other girls in the same situation. This bill would not give a girl
a good option for recourse. It would place some girls in danger.
She urged the committee members to further consider the
ramifications of this bill.
Number 0672
DR. CYNTHIA BROOKE was the next person to testify via
teleconference in Anchorage. She was a practicing obstetrician and
gynecologist in Anchorage. Obstetricians and gynecologists dealt
with private issues because of the nature of their business. It
would be of little use if a patient could not confide private
matters, such as, unwanted pregnancies. Privacy was absolutely
essential to provide appropriate care, treatment and support of a
patient. It was because of the privacy and confidentiality issues
that she spoke out against HB 37. Teenagers deserved the same
level of confidentiality and professionalism as their parents. She
encouraged teenagers to confide to their parents on their own
terms. And, it was unrealistic to expect teenagers to confide to
their parents in abusive situations. It was inconceivable to think
that a teenager who could not tell her parents or family members
that she was pregnant, would be willing to go in front of a judge
and tell him or her of her dysfunctional situation. She knew for
a fact that there were many teenagers who would rather die than
confront relatives, friends, parents or strangers who would
disapprove of their situation. From her experience, teenagers who
came from loving households eventually told their parents about the
unwanted pregnancy. And, the parents usually wanted the teenager
to receive all the facts. In fact, she was five times more likely
to die if she carried the pregnancy to term than if she had a legal
first-trimester abortion. Therefore, it was important that the
teenager enter into the decision making. In the opposite
situation, it was not feasible for the parents to be involved in
the decision making process for the girls at risk. She reiterated
doctors would be against this bill because it went against the oath
of confidentiality that they swore to uphold.
Number 0975
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Dr. Brooke to contrast the health
and emotional effects of an abortion against the health and
emotional effects of a pregnancy brought to term?
Number 0990
DR. BROOKE replied a statement by the American Academy of
Pediatrics indicated that it was a lack of involvement in the
decision making process that caused the most psychological harm in
the case of carrying a pregnancy to term. There was not a lot of
evidence, however, that a terminated pregnancy with consent of the
teenager caused psychological harm.
Number 1047
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Dr. Brooke to comment on the link
between abortion and cancer.
Number 1055
DR. BROOKE replied the link between cancer of an abortion was a
misstatement of the scientific evidence. The more pregnancies a
woman had lowered her risk of certain kinds of cancer-uterine and
ovarian. Birth control pills did the same thing; it was an
hormonal effect. The evidence was being extrapolated to mean that
a shortened pregnancy, such as an abortion, caused cancer. "You
can't say that," she declared. A shortened pregnancy did not cause
cancer, and whether or not it put a woman at a higher risk for
cancer, no studies indicated that was true.
Number 1117
KATHRYN CARSSOW was the next person to testify via teleconference
in Anchorage. She was opposed to HB 37. She explained twenty-nine
years ago in college she became pregnant. She came from a very
functional family, but at that time an abortion was illegal. She
felt if she told anybody that she was pregnant her options would
have been and the decision would no longer be hers. Consequently,
she did not tell her parents. She did not tell anybody except the
illegal abortionist. She felt fortunate to be alive today. Her
parents were dismayed afterwards. She reiterated, however, if she
would have told people, she would have lost her choice. Moreover,
"Laws can't make families work, but laws can get in the way of
families working. You cannot get in between a young woman and her
body and her future." She was also concerned if HB 37 passed an
illegal abortion industry would be created in Alaska. "Please
don't let this law pass."
Number 1287
JANET WALLACH was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. She had worked professionally with the youth for over
15 years. She had also been a foster parent. Every teenage parent
that she had seen suffered from low self-esteem, depression and
regret. Moreover, the bill proposed a great deal of spending that
the state could not afford at this time. There would be the cost
of litigation and the increased social cost of the health effects
for the parents and the children. She also believed there should
be a lot less regulation of one's private life by the government.
And, HB 37 would add more regulations. The state should be looking
at putting its time and money into preventative approaches. This
bill was not the answer.
Number 1403
SID HEIDERSDORF was the next person to testify in Juneau. He
supported HB 37. He found it troubling to hear physicians say they
could provide better medical care without parental involvement.
The question of which was safer-abortion or child birth-flew in the
face of common sense, he stated. State law should reflect broad,
general principles. The principle here was to recognize that
parents were responsible for their children. "This is simply good
state policy," he declared. A vast number of people did not even
know that it was legal to have an abortion without parental
consent. "It's such a logical thing." The counsellors and the
abortionist knew it was legal so he view the bill as a great
protection of the teenage mother. The people opposed said a young
girl would go to her parents anyway and others would not go under
any circumstances. He believed, however, there was a third group-a
marginal group. "These girls need the direction and guidance that
the law gives them. The law is in fact a teacher. The law says
you must consult with your parents." This was the group that HB 37
would serve best. He asked the committee members to support and
pass the bill to recognize the well-established values that already
existed in society. "Parents love their children and will do
what's best for them." In the cases where that was not the case,
the judicial by-pass was provided. Moreover, it was important to
look at the other states to determine the effects of the bill. He
reiterated that parents should have the responsibility for the
health care of their children. In addition, counselling in the
abortion clinics was a sham. There might be some good ones, but
just talk to the individuals who had obtained an abortion. The
country was full of abortion clinics. He wondered why it was
necessary to have organizations that handled the post abortion
syndrome. The country was full of girls that had mental and
psychological problems as the result of an abortion. He reiterated
he supported HB 37.
Number 1685
BETTY HALL, Member, Black Americans for Life, was the next person
to testify in Juneau. The prior testimony covered just about
everything that she wanted to say. She cited a case in New York
where a woman helped a young girl obtain an abortion to help the
father of the child-her son. The mother and the son were both
sentenced to prison. The mother of the daughter said had she known
about the pregnancy they would have worked it out. "We parents
need to have a chance, at least, to know about this and talk about
it." She shared with the committee members her daughter got
pregnant in college. They worked it out together. Her daughter
kept the child and was very healthy and happy. "Please consider
passing this bill because this can happen to any one of you in here
who has an under age daughter."
Number 1765
DR. BRUCE CHANDLER was the next person to testify via
teleconference in Anchorage. He strongly supported parental
notification when there was a suitable parent to listen and
understand. He was worried about the ones that would be forced to
talk to their parents that did not come from supportive families.
He routinely tried to get the teenager and the parents to talk.
But, there were situations where it would put the teenager in
greater risk. Moreover, he had little concern about judicial by-
pass and felt that it might drive teenagers away from health care.
Number 1920
EILEEN BECKER, Executive Director, Homer Crisis Pregnancy Center,
was the next person to testify via teleconference in Homer. She
stated was working on a case now, whereby, if the law existed now
the girl would have considered other options. Furthermore, she
felt there would be litigation, but that was the chance any new law
took. "We dare not take parental rights away from parents." There
were bad parents and there were parents who really did care.
Children did not always make the right choices. It was obvious in
the fact that they were pregnant. They needed somebody to help
with their decisions. She cited the post-abortion counselling was
the fasted growing entity in the nation today because of the
devastation of abortion. She was also amazed that the medical
profession would consider this a good choice because it would not
do anything without parental consent. But, it would perform an
abortion. "It's just amazing," she declared. Moreover, the cost
of the average abortion was $450. And, everyday in America 4,000
plus abortions were performed. There was more at stake here than
just parental consent. "Please, please, pass House Bill 37."
Number 2139
HUGH FLEISCHER was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. He urged the committee members not to pass HB 37. It
was difficult to understand adolescent teenagers, as any parent
knew. That was the problem here. Parental consent sounded
reasonable. However, a lot of those home environments were
dysfunctional. He was concerned about the intimidation of a court
process for a young child. The doctors indicated in earlier
testimony that the vast majority were not willing to go to court.
"I frankly think this is a terrible bill. It's endangering
children and you should not pass it."
Number 2346
BRANT MCGEE, Head, Office of Public Advocacy, was the next person
to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. The Office of Public
Advocacy would be the agency that supported girls who were pregnant
and who sought judicial by-pass. It estimated there would be 112
cases per year at a cost of $1,500 a piece. The total cost per
year would be $168,000. That was a conservative estimate
associated with the Office of Public Advocacy only. It did not
factor in litigation associated with the questions of
constitutionality. The figure did not include witness or
investigation costs association with this type of litigation
either. The bill required that the lawyer prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the minor was either mature enough to make
an informed decision, or that she had suffered abuse at the hands
of her parents. Clear and convincing evidence....
TAPE 97-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. MCGEE next questioned the ability to maintain confidentiality
of these proceedings, specially in the one or two court house
communities that dominated Alaska. These court houses were full of
clerks and other workers that lived in the community. It was
inevitable that in many of these instances the proceedings would
not remain confidential. Moreover, he had been unable to find any
evidence to suggest that more parents would be consulted as a
result of the passage of these laws. In 1991 a survey indicated
that 61 percent of pregnant minors consulted their parents. That
meant 39 percent did not consult their parents. The survey was
conducted in states that did not have a parental notice law, such
as, Alaska. In Minnesota, the number of children who pursued
judicial by-pass was 43 percent, an insignificant difference, he
stated.
Number 0143
CHAIR JAMES referenced Mr. McGee's testimony regarding
confidentiality and asked him if he stated that the people could
not trust the court employees?
Number 0174
MR. MCGEE replied when clerks and other court employees saw a minor
in a court house, questions would be presented about her presence.
It was a notable event for a youngster to show up in a court house.
It was inevitable that the purpose of the proceeding would be
discovered. He spoke from personal experience as 20 years as a
lawyer.
Number 0227
CHAIR JAMES stated she did not share the same concerns of Mr.
McGee.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ declared a conflict of interest because
Ms. Salerno, the next witness, and he boarded at the same
residence.
CHAIR JAMES stated that was not a concern.
Number 0291
ANGELA SALERNO, Executive Director, National Association of Social
Workers Alaska Chapter (NASW), was the next person to testify in
Juneau. She brought to the debate the perspective of service
providers. The association did not take a position on the morality
of abortion. Abortion was controversial because it reflected
different value systems in a pluralistic society, therefore,
toleration was necessary.
MS. SALERNO further stated that 97 percent of women who obtained an
abortion had no complications. Teenage girls were 24 times more
likely to die in child birth than in a first-trimester legal
abortion. The American Academy of Pediatrics reported that
legislation mandating parental involvement increased the risk of
pregnancy by delaying access. The AMA reported that complication
rates increased for abortions performed between the 13th and 24th
week of pregnancy. "The longer we wait to allow women to have an
abortion, the grater the risk to their health." Furthermore, the
most reliable studies showed there was no increased risk of breast
cancer due to an abortion. The entire body of research was called
inconclusive by the National Cancer Institute and the American
Cancer Society. Moreover, in refute to the long-term health
effects of abortion, many organizations did not recognize their
existence. The most prominent emotional response was relief from
a first-trimester abortion. Another study showed that a group of
black teenagers who had an abortion were more likely to graduate
from high school, they showed no greater level of stress, and had
no greater rate of psychological problems two years after the
abortion. The American Journal of Psychiatry reported up to 98
percent of women who had an abortion had no regrets and would make
the same choice again. In 1987 Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
could not form a conclusion on abortion because there was no
evidence. In 1988, he indicated that the risk of significant
emotional problems following an abortion was "minuscule." In 1989,
a panel of experts assembled by the American Psychological
Association concluded-unanimously-that legal abortions did not
create psychological hazards.
MS. SALERNO stated, in conclusion, the community and the
legislature was asking that teenagers become more responsible
through legislation. When in fact, this piece of legislation did
just the opposite by asking them to take less responsibility for
themselves. That was a clear contradiction in public policy. The
association supported the idea of strong families and believed that
parents had a profound interest in the well being of their
children. But, in the case of a pregnancy, it was the teenager's
right that must be paramount. The courts had found that teenagers
who wanted to keep their pregnancy a secret almost always had a
good reason for doing that. When there was reason to expect an
abusive parental reaction to an unplanned pregnancy, her right to
privacy must be first. She was in the best position to know if she
was in danger or not. A legislature that was unfamiliar with a
young woman's situation was not in a position to force her to
involve her parents. "When abortion is concerned, privacy can be
a life or death matter for teenagers."
Number 0706
PAULINE UTTER, Representative, Abortion Rights Project, was the
next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. The
legislature could not mandate a teenager to talk to her parents.
"You might want to, but you can't." Moreover, choice was legal in
the United States today, and this bill was trying to remove a
woman's right to choose. She urged the committee members to vote
against HB 37.
Number 0808
JOHN MONAGLE, Representative, Alaskans For Life, was the next
person to testify in Juneau. Alaskans For Life was an autonomous
group representing 1,200 people in Juneau. The testimony indicated
that parents should take responsibility for their children. Yet,
doctors and attorneys indicated that they were in a better position
to decide for the parents. In addition, this was a multi-million
dollar industry, and doctors were driven by the dollar. Alaskans
For Life supported HB 37 and it urged the committee members to pass
the bill.
Number 0875
JANET MITSON was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. She was the mother of a 16 year old daughter. She was
opposed to HB 37. This was a poor bill that did little credit to
its sponsor. Why?, she asked, because it was cowardly, unjust and
disrespectful. The root issue was legal abortion and the desire to
ban it. But having failed at that, the sponsor took what he could,
gnawing away at the rights of young women in Alaska. This bill was
really about the desire to sponsor and limit choices for young
women, restrict their independent judgement, and control their
actions and bodies. Her daughter did not need her parents or a
judge to do her thinking or make her decisions for her. She and
her peers could do that for themselves. What they cannot do,
however, was vote. Therefore, some legislators thought they could
be an easy target to control. There were thousands of older men
and women who felt, as she did, and stood ready to defend young
women for those who seek to diminish their rights. "We are
watching, we will hold legislators accountable to the act to
restrict the rights of young women who by age alone have less
political voice and power. And, we do vote." She urged the
committee members to do what was right, just, and respectful for
all young women in Alaska by opposing HB 37.
Number 1053
THEDA PITTMAN was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. She had not heard any testimony to indicate that
doctors and attorneys were in a better position to choose than the
pregnant young woman. She did not hear any counsellors indicate
that they were in a better position to choose either. She heard
talk about urging young women to talk to their parents and helping
them to make a decision based upon the full range of legal options
available to them. Moreover, treatment for a sexually transmitted
disease did not require parental consent. "Thank goodness for it,"
she declared. At some stage, the people recognized that there were
some things so intimate and so personal that it was more important
to get the treatment than it was to get a piece of paper from their
parents. It was also true that a teenage mother could okay
treatment for her baby, or put it up for adoption without her
parental consent. "This is a sad bill. I urge you to defeat it."
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1167
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 10:05 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|