Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/27/1997 08:05 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 27, 1997
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Supporting continued funding of the Alaska National Guard Youth
Corps Challenge Program.
- MOVED SJR 7 OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to freedom of conscience.
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
prohibiting the imposition of state personal income taxation, state
ad valorem taxation on real property, or state retail sales
taxation without the approval of the voters of the state.
- MOVED HJR 7 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 7
SHORT TITLE: AK NAT'L GUARD YOUTH CORPS CHALLENGE PROG
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PHILLIPS, Pearce, Leman, Mackie, Green,
Kelly, Parnell, Ellis, Hoffman, Ward, Sharp, Wilken, Miller,
Duncan, Lincoln, Halford, Torgerson; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Rokeberg,
Grussendorf, Brice, Bunde, Ryan, Kubina, Masek, Mulder, Ivan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/14/97 41 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/14/97 41 (S) STATE AFFAIRS
01/23/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
01/23/97 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/24/97 124 (S) STA RPT 5DP
01/24/97 124 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, MACKIE, WARD, DUNCAN
01/24/97 124 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DMVA)
01/28/97 (S) RLS AT 11:09 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
01/28/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
01/29/97 160 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1/29/97
01/29/97 161 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
01/29/97 161 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
01/29/97 161 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 7
01/29/97 161 (S) COSPONSOR(S): PEARCE, LEMAN, MACKIE,
01/29/97 161 (S) GREEN, KELLY, PARNELL, ELLIS, HOFFMAN,
01/29/97 161 (S) WARD, SHARP, WILKEN, MILLER, DUNCAN,
01/29/97 161 (S) LINCOLN, HALFORD, TORGERSON
01/29/97 162 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
01/29/97 164 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
01/31/97 182 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/31/97 183 (H) MLV, STATE AFFAIRS
01/31/97 207 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG, GRUSSENDORF
01/31/97 207 (H) BRICE, BUNDE, RYAN, KUBINA
02/07/97 277 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MASEK
02/11/97 (H) MLV AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17
02/11/97 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/12/97 312 (H) MLV RPT 7DP
02/12/97 312 (H) DP: MASEK, KOTT, MULDER, NICHOLIA
02/12/97 312 (H) JOULE, RYAN, FOSTER
02/12/97 312 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DMVA) 1/24/97
02/12/97 325 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MULDER
02/27/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 5
SHORT TITLE: CONSTIT AMNDMNT: FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 23 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/25/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/25/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 7
SHORT TITLE: VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW TAXES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 23 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/27/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 103
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4949
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 7.
JOHN MANLY, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Terry Martin
State Capitol, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 5.
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 5.
MARY SHIELDS
3941 East 7th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 333-9336
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 5.
KEN JACOBUS
425 "G" Street, Number 920
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-3333
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 5.
THEDA PITTMAN
P.O. Box 201844
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Telephone: (907) 258-0044
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 5.
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1185
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 5 and HJR 7.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-21, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Dyson, Hodgins, Ivan and Vezey.
Members absent were Berkowitz and Elton.
SJR 7 - AK NAT'L GUARD YOUTH CORPS CHALLENGE PROG
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was SJR 7, Supporting continued funding of the
Alaska National Guard Youth Corps Challenge Program.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on Senator Randy Phillips, sponsor of
SJR 7, to present the resolution.
Number 0086
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, explained SJR 7
was a resolution asking for the continuation of the funding for the
National Guard Youth Program on Fort Richardson. The resolution
requested that the U.S. Congress continue the program. The program
was at the end of its third year of federal funding. He stated the
program was very good, and that many were aware of the good deeds
of the National Guard. In addition, there was a $250,000
appropriation proposed as a state match in the Governor's budget to
continue the program. Therefore, by showing the state's commitment
to the program, it should increase its chance to receive federal
funding. He reiterated the resolution was a request of Congress to
continue the program.
The record reflected the arrival of Representatives Kim Elton and
Ethan Berkowitz.
Number 0218
CHAIR JAMES commented that she had heard good reports of the
program and believed it was worthwhile.
Number 0229
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to move the resolution from the
committee.
Number 0237
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON moved that SJR 7 move from the committee
with attached fiscal note(s) and individual recommendations. There
was no objection, SJR 7 was so moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at ease at 8:08 a.m.
CHAIR JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting back to order at 8:10 a.m.
HJR 5 - CONSTIT AMNDMNT: FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HJR 5, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to freedom of
conscience.
CHAIR JAMES called on John Manly, Legislative Assistant to
Representative Terry Martin, to present the resolution.
Number 0425
JOHN MANLY, Legislative Assistant to Representative Terry Martin,
explained that the resolution would put a constitutional amendment
before the voters that would protect the freedom of conscience. It
was important to distinguish between the freedom of religion and
the freedom of conscience. He explained an individual had to have
a freedom of conscience to choose a religion. An individual
followed a conscience that told him or her what was right and what
was wrong. Individuals that did not choose a religion also had a
freedom of conscience.
MR. MANLY further explained it was the Valley Hospital Association,
Inc. v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice court case that brought this
issue to the fore front. The Valley Hospital offered abortions but
the staff was reluctant to get involved. As a result, staff from
Anchorage was brought in to participate. Ultimately, the staff
choose to stop offering an abortion, of which, they were sued by
the doctors. The judge in the court case mandated that the
hospital continue to offer an abortion because it was a publicly
funded hospital and an abortion was a protected right. However, it
was also clear the judge decided that the freedom of conscience was
not protected by the freedom of religion.
MR. MANLY further explained that the abortion statute passed in
1970 included a disclaimer that if someone conscientiously objected
to the procedure he or she did not have to participate in it.
Moreover, the right of privacy passed in 1972 was a constitutional
right that overrode the statutory freedom of conscience.
MR. MANLY further cited an example in Australia in regards to its
euthanasia law where the doctors were nervous about participating
in that practice. The procedures of abortion, assisted suicide,
and euthanasia were issues that people could object to
participating in, and if their job was on the line, they should not
have to make that choice.
MR. MANLY further stated that there was a phrase in other state's
constitutions that took care of problems of circumventing the
paying of taxes, for example, because it was against one's
conscience.
Number 0815
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Mr. Manly what would be the
situation if a medical staff member believed that blood
transfusions were philosophically improper and refused to
participate in any blood transfusion work?
Number 0852
MR. MANLY replied that was an issue that needed to be discussed.
He was familiar with the Jehovah Witness religion that was opposed
to blood transfusions. Their opposition gave rise to the work of
super cooling the body for open heart surgery. In his mind, the
objection fell into the same category as a person who objected to
killing babies; a conscientious objection due to religion.
Number 0905
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Manly if a hospital would be
prohibited from terminating the services of a person who objected
to blood transfusions?
Number 0928
MR. MANLY replied the hospital could terminate the services of that
person, but then there would be a constitutional cause to sue for
damages and/or to get his or her job back.
Number 0949
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS saw the negative end of the resolution
and how it could be used against society. In addition, he was
concerned about the wording on the ballot and the possibility that
it could be misleading. He had no problem, however, with passing
the resolution from the committee because the people would make the
final determination. Otherwise, he would need more answers
regarding its impact on society. For example, did this allow
someone to not pay his taxes? he asked.
Number 1027
MR. MANLY replied the states of Washington and Connecticut outlined
freedom of conscience in their constitutions. They included a
phrase that said the following:
"but the liberty of conscience here by secured shall not be so
construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justified
practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state."
MR. MANLY further stated that the phrase could be interpreted
broadly or narrowly. The phrase indicated that mayhem or the
refusal to pay one's taxes, for example, was not allowed.
Number 1081
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Manly when and who put the wording
together for a ballot measure?
Number 1093
MR. MANLY replied the wording would be as it appeared in the
resolution.
Number 1123
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS wondered, unless the resolution was amended,
if lines 6-8 of the resolution were the only things that would
appear on the ballot.
MR. MANLY replied there would probably also be a preface statement.
Number 1142
CHAIR JAMES explained the leading statement on the term limit issue
on the ballot last year did not fully disclose what was being voted
on. The Division of Elections created the ballot language with the
approval of the attorney's general office. It was important to
include a follow-up, however, so that the full intent was included
in the preface statement.
Number 1206
MR. MANLY explained that the ballot measure in 1970 asking for a
constitutional convention was challenged in court because the
preface language was misleading.
Number 1263
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON announced he was not comfortable with the
bill. He wondered how it would affect the private sector. He
cited a timber company that encountered a couple of loggers who
believed in the sanctity of anadromous fish streams and did not
want to cut trees closer than 500 yards to a fish stream. He was
also concerned that an amendment of this sort would create a
playground for attorneys.
Number 1320
MR. MANLY replied that Tamara Cook, Director, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, also believed that a string of cases would be
brought to the courts, of which, no merit would be found. It was
a valid point which was why the language from Washington and
Connecticut was included; to address the issue of licentiousness
behavior.
Number 1392
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied that licentiousness was lewd and
lascivious behavior.
MR. MANLY replied that was the first definition. The first
definition, according to Webster, was morally undisciplined or
sexually under-restrained behavior. The second definition was
having no regard for accepted rules or standards.
Number 1419
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN asked Mr. Manly if he had a legal
definition of freedom of conscience?
Number 1438
MR. MANLY replied he had background material only. He did not have
a legal opinion.
Number 1461
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked Mr. Manly if it was not the right of a
person to look for another job if he could not go through with a
morally-opposed-to medical procedure?
Number 1487
MR. MANLY replied the alternatives were: to quit or be fired. The
question was: "Should a person have to quit or be fired, if he
morally objected to a procedure that a hospital engaged in?"
Number 1503
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked Mr. Manly would a person's defense be
that he or she conscientiously objected to staying with the job and
to performing the acts that he or she felt were morally wrong?
Number 1520
MR. MANLY replied, "Yes, that would be your defense." A person
would have legal action in the event he was fired.
Number 1539
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated the courts would deal with the serious
cases that would help build a pattern to define what was acceptable
and protected. A good example was the Swammer case, of which, a
landlord refused to rent to unmarried couples based on his
religious convictions. The resolution, he explained, empowered the
people to act on significant issues in concert with their own
conscience, who did not have an underlying religious principle, but
rather a strong, moral and ethical principle.
Number 1608
MR. MANLY replied that was the main idea. Some people were
protected by their freedom of religion. Although, that was not
what the court found in the Valley Hospital case. In other words,
the freedom of conscience was not protected by the freedom of
religion.
Number 1627
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Manly if the states of Washington
and Connecticut had been inundated with frivolous suits?
MR. MANLY replied, "I don't know."
Number 1642
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Manly if information was provided to
the committee members to move the suggested amendment he referred
to earlier?
Number 1650
MR. MANLY replied, "No." He did not include an amendment in the
package of information. It was just a suggestion to consider.
Number 1657
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Manly how the bill would
affect the debate regarding Indian country?
Number 1669
MR. MANLY replied, "I don't know."
Number 1681
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated much of the Native community cited
a strong reasonof conscience. Therefore, if an exemption for
conscience was granted, it would be hard for the state to contest.
Number 1701
MR. MANLY replied he did not understand the scenario Representative
Berkowitz suggested. Was he concerned that the Natives would
disregard the fishing and hunting regulations and statutes due to
a freedom of conscience? he asked. He did not know, however, how
that would affect the resolution.
Number 1731
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that the House State Affairs
Standing Committee just passed some bills adding restrictions to
abortion. He asked Mr. Manly if a doctor would be able to use the
freedom of conscience provision in order to perform an abortion?
Number 1741
MR. MANLY replied, as long as an abortion was legal in the state he
could already perform one.
Number 1754
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated an example would be a minor who
wanted an abortion without parental notification for a late-term
abortion.
Number 1761
MR. MANLY replied that would again depend on the final language of
the clause and how it would appear in the constitution.
Number 1771
CHAIR JAMES stated it appeared that the freedom of conscience
allowed one to not do something that was otherwise legal. It did
not necessarily allow one to do something that was illegal.
CHAIR JAMES further stated that violating her conscience was the
most painful thing that she could do. In addition, a conscience
could be conditioned over time so it was very difficult to define,
and it must be defined before allowing for its freedom.
Number 1850
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained he had participated in court
cases that involved this issue. He discovered that when a
departure from the law was allowed, anarchy was created that served
no one's freedom.
Number 1883
MR. MANLY replied the language that he suggested adding would
address the justification of acts that were inconsistent with the
peace and safety of the state, and would allow for the avoidance of
those types of court cases.
Number 1952
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law, declared that the
division was opposed to HJR 5. "We as Americans revere our
freedom, especially as Alaskans, our freedom of expression and
thought." The freedom to behave in certain ways was guided by laws
adopted by the legislators. The amendment allowed for a person to
act according to his or her individual conscience without regard to
the collective consciousness of the people and the laws-both
criminal and natural resource laws. "I think this would open up a
Pandora's box of epic proportions and it would allow anarchy,"
because criminal laws could be violated and the violations could be
justified by a person's sincerely held conscientious belief that he
or she had the right to do that.
MS. CARPENETI further explained that the federal government passed
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that required a person
to prove a sincerely held religious belief and allowed the state to
overcome it through a compelling state interest. House Joint
Resolution 5, on the other hand, was absolute. It allowed a person
to behave according to his or her conscience without regard to the
collective will or to the criminal statutes.
Number 2061
CHAIR JAMES stated that the resolution, according to her
understanding, allowed a person to not behave in a certain way if
it violated his or her conscience. The discussion today, however,
did not allow a person to do something, but allowed a person to do
something because of his or her conscience.
Number 2083
MS. CARPENETI read Section 25 of the resolution, "Freedom of
Conscience. An individual may not be denied freedom of
conscience...."
Number 2088
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Carpeneti how else could it be defined so
that it was more restrictive rather than an approval of doing
something? In other words, a person could walk away from something
if it bothered his or her conscience. She cited a story of a
neighborhood grocery that refused to sell tobacco or alcohol
products despite the public pressure because of a belief. As a
result, the people would go elsewhere to purchase their alcohol and
tobacco products. A hospital was a different story, however,
because it offered services. She could see both sides of the
issue, but she could not see making a person perform a type of
service, such as, an abortion if it bothered him or her.
Number 2170
MS. CARPENETI replied language could be drafted to address her
concerns, but it would not answer all of the problems. Language
could be drafted so that a person did not have to act in a way that
was contrary to his or her conscience. That, however, did not
answer objections to paying taxes, for example.
Number 2194
CHAIR JAMES stated the conscientious objector in World War II had
to belong to a religion that did not believe in war. It was more
a freedom of religion than a freedom of conscience.
Number 2235
MS. CARPENETI replied during the Vietnam Era it was not a freedom
of religion but a freedom of conscience; the objector had to
establish that it was a sincerely held belief.
Number 2252
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that there was a court case in Rhode
Island during the Vietnam Era that expanded the belief beyond a
freedom of religion to a freedom of conscience for the purposes of
military service.
Number 2270
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that the talk today concentrated on the
negative side of the issue. The underlying question for the other
side of the issue was: "Should we extend to non-religious people
the right to make principled decisions about their activities?"
Number 2296
MS. CARPENETI replied, personally, the amendment clearly allowed
for that. It was not limited to a conscientiously held belief
based on a religion. It allowed for a person to act according to
his or her conscience no matter what it was based on.
Number 2318
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Carpeneti if the constitutional
battles surrounding a religious conscientious objection tied it to
the consensus of a larger group thereby protecting it from anarchy?
Number 2348
MS. CARPENETI replied, historically, organized religions in the
early part of the century were more dominant. And, tying an
objection to a religious belief was one way that a person could
prove a sincere objection.
Number 2369
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that the focus today had been on
the issue of whether someone could be compelled to act. He
wondered if an action always included a refrain from action. He
asked Ms. Carpeneti is she agreed with that statement?
Number 2380
MS. CARPENETI replied, "Yes." The amendment would cover actions
and refrain from actions in terms of hospitals and abortions. It
would be difficult to draft it so that it only dealt with positive
actions, however.
Number 2416
MARY SHIELDS was the first person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. The rationale of this resolution also applied to a
doctor to perform an abortion at any time during a pregnancy; it
would allow any doctor to practice euthanasia if it was part of his
or her conscience; and it would allow any employer not to promote
based on merit because "women really don't belong in the work
place, and they certainly don't belong as managers in the work
place."
TAPE 97-21, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. SHIELDS further stated that she practiced her conscience, but
she might not want somebody else to practice their conscience. She
further wondered if the resolution meant that somebody could beat
up a small, black child; or beat a wife/husband into submission.
"When you start dealing with things like `freedom of conscience'
and take it away from any type of consistent moral standard, I
believe that we're opening a Pandora's box." Furthermore, if the
resolution was moved forward, a huge fiscal note would be necessary
because there would be many, many, many law suits. The resolution
was conceived with a good purpose, but it would be devastating to
the state of Alaska.
Number 0064
KEN JACOBUS was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. It was unfortunate that the issue of freedom of
conscience was tied to the abortion debate because it missed the
point. He was also surprised that there had not been a reference
made to the right of privacy. He supported the resolution in order
to allow the people to vote on the issue. Furthermore, the right
of privacy was already in the Alaska State Constitution which was
exactly the opposite of the freedom of conscience. The right to
privacy protected an individual's right to do something without
governmental interference. The right to a freedom of conscience,
on the other hand, protected an individual's right to not do
something without governmental interference. The Valley Hospital
court case was an extension of that freedom whereby a woman had the
constitutional right to an abortion and she could use that right to
force a doctor or a hospital to perform an abortion, even if the
doctor or the hospital did not want to perform it. Otherwise, it
was a violation of an individual's right. He reiterated, it was
unfortunate that the issue of freedom of conscience was tied to the
abortion debate and religion. The issues of the conscientious
objectors to military service, the Jehovah Witnesses saluting the
flag, the Amish paying taxes and social security, and the
conditions of employment had already been resolved in freedom of
religion court cases. It did not extend to someone of an organized
religion but rather it extended to a religion, a conduct being
religiously based, and a sincerity in the religious belief. This
protection should also be extended to people who simply objected to
certain acts due to a conscientious objection.
Number 0226
THEDA PITTMAN was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. She opposed HJR 5 because of the sponsor's statement
which read, "that providers of medical services such as doctors and
nurses have been forced to perform or participate in certain
medical procedures such as abortions." The statement was
misinformed and it had nothing to do with the Valley Hospital court
case. She explained, nothing in the court documents supported the
assertion that the point was to force anyone to participate or
assist in an abortion against his or her conscience. The record
showed, however, that the union agreement for the Valley Hospital
employees contained a conscientious objection clause specifically
relating to abortions. The case showed that the plaintiffs had no
problem complying with that clause and they experienced no problems
during the two years of the temporary injunction that required the
hospital to perform abortions. An example was made of a
maintenance employee who wished to be exempt from working on any
equipment that was used for an abortion in accordance to the
bargaining agreement. The hospital denied the request on the
grounds that working on the equipment was not participating in or
assisting in an abortion procedure. In addition, the executive
director testified that only two physicians cited their anti-
abortion views-an Anchorage physician and a temporary physician.
She was amazed that the pro-choice activists would want to force a
doctor or a nurse to participate in an abortion. "Just imagine
yourself as a patient, a patient for any medical procedure, do you
really want someone working on you who has a moral objection to the
procedure?" She asked the committee members to hold the resolution
in the committee.
Number 0331
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, Alaska State Legislature, explained
that throughout the history of mankind the freedom of conscience
had always been recognized. This was exemplified in the ancient
Hebrew writings. It was only later in Europe that individual
rights and religious rights were talked about. At the same time
the right of a conscience was talked about for those that did not
have a religious belief. It was clear for those that immigrated to
America, the freedom of conscience was much more important than the
freedom of religion.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN further stated that, according to the courts,
the conscientious right to an abortion overrode the statutory
conscientious clause in Alaska. Moreover, the Founding Fathers did
not want to include every freedom into the Declaration of
Independence because they did not want to limit the inalienable
rights of future generations. He wondered if the inalienable right
of the freedom of conscience was a guaranteed protection, or a
statutory right that could be changed by the legislature at any
time.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN further explained this was a worldwide
phenomena. He cited an example in Australia where a doctor did not
want to participate in an euthanasia procedure. "Can we force
anybody to take the life of somebody else, especially if we won't
do it ourself?" he asked.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN further stated that the Alaska State
Constitution gave the freedom of exercise, but it did not give the
freedom of conscience which needed to be addressed.
Number 0567
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that the body was discussing the
problems inherited with having 226 sovereign entities within the
state of Alaska. The resolution would create 600,000 sovereign
entities within the state of Alaska. He asked Representative
Martin how the government would function when a person refused to
obey the law due to a freedom of conscience argument?
Number 0595
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied there were really 260 million
individuals in the United State, and 4.5 billion individuals world
wide that had a freedom of conscience. It was an individual
freedom; it had nothing to do with ethnicity, values or
nationality. Those who chose to use the right to disobey the law
by speeding down the highway, for example, was not a freedom of
conscience but rather a deliberate disobedience of the law.
Number 0687
CHAIR JAMES stated part of the problem was that the term
"conscience" had been used for a lot of improper things and it was
hard to measure. She believed that her freedom of conscience was
protected with or without a constitutional amendment because she
had a choice to act or to not act.
HJR 7 - VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW TAXES
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HJR 7, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting the imposition of
state personal income taxation, state ad valorem taxation on real
property, or state retail sales taxation without the approval of
the voters of the state.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Terry Martin, sponsor of HJR
7, to present the resolution.
Number 0774
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, Alaska State Legislature, explained
HJR 7 was another principle that should be ascertained as a
constitutional guarantee. The Founding Fathers wondered to what
degree an elected official could pry people of their earnings
through taxation. Most other states had protections so that it was
not as easy to get into a person's private earnings, such as,
savings and retirement pensions. Most states required a two-thirds
vote of both houses before a new tax was instituted. And, many
states also required the approval of the people before instituting
a new tax. The people usually approved of a new tax if it was
reasonable. Most taxes, however, were not approved. In Alaska, a
simple majority of the legislators was required to impose a new tax
at anytime. "That's kind of scary, especially when we don't need
the money." And, there was a constant threat to the people for a
taxation in Alaska; the richest state in the country.
Number 0895
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS announced he intended to become a co-sponsor
of HJR 7 because the question of taxation should always rest with
the individual on the street.
Number 0935
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that HJR 7 move from the committee
with the attached fiscal note(s) and individual recommendations.
Number 0947
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. A roll call vote was taken.
Representatives James, Dyson, Hodgins and Ivan voted in favor of
the motion. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton voted against the
motion. House Joint Resolution 7 was so moved from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
Number 0988
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN further stated in regards to HJR 5 that
Section 1 of the Alaska State Constitution stated that all persons
had a corresponding obligation to the people and to the state.
This provision was similar to other state constitutions that
included a freedom of conscience protection.
Number 1044
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what was the status of HJR 5?
CHAIR JAMES replied it was sitting in the committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1056
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 9:16 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|