Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/29/1997 09:00 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
January 29, 1997
9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Wilken, Chairman
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chairman
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 24
"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
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 24 - No previous Senate action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Leman
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of SB 24.
Judith Koehler, Senior Legislative Counsel
Americans United for Life
343 South Deerborn Street, Suite 1804
Chicago, Illinois 60604
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed similar legislation in other states.
Kristen Bomengen, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the legal vulnerabilities of SB 24.
Rick Mitcham
Alaska Family Council
PO Box 210124
Anchorage, Alaska 99521
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 24.
Bob Lynn, Vice President
Alaska Right to Life
4400 Trapeline Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 24.
Debra Joslin, District Chair
Alaska Republican Party in District 35
PO Box 337
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed need for parental involvement.
Barb Rawalt, District Finance Chair
Alaska Republican Party in District 35
PO Box 823
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 24.
Eileen Becker, Director
Homer Crisis Pregnancy Center
PO Box 2
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Emphasized the importance of making SB 24
legally sound.
Kermit Reppond
1616 Selief Lane
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 24.
Charles Tripp
1820 Larch Street
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 24.
Mark Moldenhauer
PO Box 595
Sterling, Alaska 99672
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 24.
Natasha Calvin
PO Box 2966
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Indicated opposition to SB 24.
Virginia Phillips, Member
Board of Pregnancy Aide
404 Lake Street, 2-D
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the passage of SB 24.
Coralyn Oines
2414 Halibut Point Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the passage of SB 24.
Diane Wight
Christian Coalition of Alaska
3900 Arctic
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 24.
Brant McGee, Director
Office of Public Advocacy
900 W 5th, Suite 525
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the fiscal note generated by the
Office of Public Advocacy for SB 24.
Crystal Baker
Alaska Right to Life
19314 Birchwood Loop Road
Eagle River, Alaska 99567
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed her family's experience with
abortion.
Theda Pittman
Pro Choice Alliance
4720 Eagle #1
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested supporting family planning services,
comprehensive sex education, contraception,
and abstinence.
Pauline Utter
PO Box 240667
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the lack of responsibility placed on
minor males with regard to this issue.
Dr. Peter Nakamura, Director
Division of Public Health
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110610
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0610
POSITION STATEMENT: The Administration opposed SB 24.
Angela Salerno, Executive Director
Alaska Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers
525 Main Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 24.
ACTION NARRATIVE
Tape 97-1, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 24 PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
CHAIRMAN WILKEN called the Senate Health, Education & Social
Services Committee (HES) to order at 9:00 a.m. and introduced SB 24
as the only order of business before the committee. Chairman
Wilken said that he did not intend to report SB 24 out of committee
today.
SENATOR LEMAN , Prime Sponsor of SB 24, informed the committee that
SB 24 is a revisitation of SB 105 in the 19th Legislature. SB 24
will make Alaska's current parental consent law enforceable. The
current parental consent law is not enforceable because a 1976
Alaska Attorney General ruled that law unenforceable without a
judicial bypass. Senator Leman pointed out that the national
policy of the President is to see abortions become rare; this bill
is a small step in that direction. He discussed the many areas of
parental involvement such as permission for field trips, ear
piercing, or medication given at school of which abortion is not
included. Teens stand to benefit from the support and counsel that
parents can offer during a difficult time. Senator Leman
acknowledged that most families offer a supportive environment for
their children. SB 24 would allow parents to be parents when
needed most.
Number 161
Senator Leman noted that 38 states have parental involvement
statutes and of those, 27 states enforce the statute. Where the
statutes are enforced, teen pregnancies, births, and teen abortions
have decreased. SB 24 does not take away the right to an abortion
as the Supreme Court has decided that in cases such as Roe v Wade.
Senator Leman explained that SB 24 is consistent with the
reasonable restrictions allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court, in this
instance, restrictions on children. This bill is also consistent
with Alaska's right to privacy decision.
Number 201
JUDITH KOEHLER , Senior Legislative Counsel for Americans United for
Life, informed the committee that Americans United for Life is a
nonprofit, public interest law firm and educational organization.
Americans United for Life has been involved in practically all the
litigation involving abortions in the U.S. Supreme Court since and
including Roe v Wade. Ms. Koehler noted that the organization's
involvement in Hodgeson v Minnesota would be relevant to this
legislation. In that case, Minnesota's parental consent law was
upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Currently, 27 states have
parental involvement laws. All of which have judicial bypass and
are enforceable. Seven other states, including Alaska, have
parental involvement statutes that are not enforceable due to the
lack of a judicial bypass provision. If enacted, SB 24 could be
successfully litigated and become enforceable. She discussed
examples of overwhelming public support for parental notice laws in
states such as Iowa, Texas, and Colorado.
Ms. Koehler spoke to the effectiveness of parental involvement
laws. The following information was obtained from the brief filed
by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons in the
Hodgeson v Minnesota litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. She
noted that her office had prepared the brief for the physicians and
surgeons. Between 1981 and 1986 after Minnesota's parental consent
law was passed, teenage pregnancy rates fell by 20.5 percent,
teenage birth rates fell by 12.5 percent, and teenage abortion
rates fell by 27.4 percent. In some, the teen birth rate fell due
to a reduction in the pregnancy rate, not an increase in abortions.
Ms. Koehler stated that those statistics illustrate that
legislation such as SB 24 is good public policy. Furthermore, many
other states experienced similar results with the passage of a
parental consent law. Ms. Koehler informed the committee of a
report in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in May 1996 which
concluded that there is no empirical support for the claim that
recent restrictions on access to abortion has lead to higher teen
birth rates.
Number 262
Ms. Koehler noted that the Alaska Chapter of the National
Association of Social Workers planned to testify that following the
enactment of the Minnesota parental notice law, second trimester
abortions among minors increased 18 percent. That statement is
misleading because the total number of teen abortions in Minnesota
declined as well as the number of second trimester abortions.
However, the number of second trimester abortions did not decline
as much as the total. Therefore, the second trimester abortions
made up a greater portion of the total number of abortions.
Ms. Koehler informed the committee that she had researched the
abortion - breast cancer link. A study of teen abortions in
Seattle, Washington, determined that a minor with a family history
of breast cancer who aborts her first child prior to her 18th
birthday all developed breast cancer by age 45. Parents would
understand the implications of a teen's family history. Ms.Koehler
stressed the need for a parent's right to know.
Number 300
KRISTEN BOMENGEN , Assistant Attorney General with the Human
Services Section in the Department of Law, indicated the
possibility of constitutional challenges to this legislation. Ms.
Bomengen noted that the legal issues she would discuss had been
addressed in a Legislative Counsel memo in 1995. The parental
consent requirement could be subject to a constitutional challenge
which could be successful in Alaska's courts. A review of state
jurisprudence in other areas reveals that when a state
constitutional test is applied it is higher than the federal
constitutional privacy test which supports the possibility of a
constitutional challenge. Florida and California have parental
consent statutes that allowed judicial bypass to be put in place.
In these states, the law became unenforceable due to legal action.
Currently, a stay is in place in California until the matter can be
settled. Therefore, such litigation would be necessary in Alaska.
Ms. Bomengen believed that a minor would be deemed to have a
fundamental right of privacy that would be affected by SB 24. By
raising the age from 16 in last year's bill to 18 in SB 24, would
enhance the aforementioned argument. Furthermore, she believed
that the court would find that the state has a compelling interest
in this area of law. The compelling interests are enunciated in
Section 1 of SB 24. Under a constitutional challenge, the state
would have to illustrate a direct connection between the compelling
interests and the ends to be achieved through the parental consent
requirement conditioned by the judicial bypass. Such a test has
been difficult for other states such as California.
In conclusion, Ms. Bomengen pointed out that there is an equal
protection issue with regards to the access of the judicial bypass
procedure, especially in rural Alaska. Also Section 3 creates a
new tort liability for a doctor. Since the Legislature is
reviewing Tort Reform as a whole, it may be appropriate to review
the tort liability in SB 24 at that time as well.
Number 371
SENATOR LEMAN explained that the change in age in the bill last
year was the result of committee action. Last year's bill did not
pass on reconsideration and so the bill will start the process
again. With regards to equal protection, a rural Alaskan teen
would have to come to a community where an abortion would be
provided. In these same communities a court would also be
available.
KRISTEN BOMENGEN agreed that the delivery of these services would
likely involve travel. However, any constitutional challenge would
be based upon the facts brought before the court. Ms. Bomengen
wanted to point out that there would be a question about the
genuine accessibility for a judicial bypass to persons in remote
communities in Alaska.
SENATOR WARD commented that everything to which Ms. Bomengen
referred was subject to the court's interpretation which is
unknown. Senator Ward asked if the Administration was opposed to
the bill as currently written. He also asked if she would be
offering amendments to address the previously stated concerns.
KRISTEN BOMENGEN said that she was present in order to point out
the legal difficulties with SB 24, not offer amendments. Ms.
Bomengen stated that she was not present to speak to the
Administration's position on SB 24. At this time, Alaska is
subject to the same constitutional vulnerabilities and scrutiny as
California.
SENATOR WARD noted that as a legislator, he must make decisions
that may have to go to the courts. He requested amendments in
writing from Ms. Bomengen to address the problems she cited.
KRISTEN BOMENGEN reiterated the following concerns with SB 24: the
age change, the tort issue, and the equal protection vulnerability.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN acknowledged Representative Kelly's presence in the
audience.
Number 430
RICK MITCHAM , Alaska Family Council and a parent, posed a series o
questions indicating that parents are ultimately responsible for
their child. Mr. Mitcham believed that a child should not be
pregnant and alone facing the decisions that lay ahead.
Furthermore, the child's immaturity would affect those decisions.
Mr. Mitcham stressed that parental authority is being eroded. In
conclusion, Mr. Mitcham requested that SB 24 be approved so that
the responsible parties can make the right decisions.
BOB LYNN , Vice President of the Alaska Right to Life and father,
hoped SB 24 would be adopted. The vote on this bill is really a
vote regarding the principle that families and parents are the
foundation of society. Mr. Lynn pointed out the paradox of parents
being held responsible for the communication of values and the
physical and mental care of their children, while prohibiting the
same parents from making an informed decision on a procedure such
as abortion. There is due process for those parents who are unable
or do not want to take care of their children. Mr. Lynn stated
that abortion is not a safe procedure, regardless of propaganda to
the contrary. With regards to privacy, Mr. Lynn emphasized that
privacy applies to families and parents as well as women. Mr. Lynn
requested a favorable consideration of SB 24.
Number 510
SENATOR ELLIS asked if medical evidence regarding abortions being
medically unsafe would be submitted for the public record. The
bill speaks directly to the protection of the health of minor women
which predisposes that abortions are medically unsafe procedures.
Senator Ellis informed the committee that in one state where the
parental notification - judicial bypass procedure has been ruled
unconstitutional, the court found abortions to be a medically safe
procedure. With regards to Ms. Koehler's comments about the study
linking breast cancer to teen abortions, Senator Ellis believed
that other medical studies had discredited that conclusion.
Senator Ellis requested that the committee seek information on both
of those issues.
SENATOR WARD felt that Mr. Lynn would be an appropriate person to
request the information referred to by Senator Ellis. Senator Ward
requested that Mr. Lynn forward any relevant information to the
committee.
SENATOR LEMAN acknowledged that the safety of abortions could be
debated, but he felt that Senator Ellis would agree that abortions
would be safer if parents were involved which is the directive of
this bill.
SENATOR ELLIS agreed that the bill would improve the situation if
the parent was loving and caring. On the other hand, if the parent
was abusive, the situation would not necessarily be improved.
Senator Ellis clarified that his comments were directed to the
language in the bill stating, "protecting the health of minor
women."
Number 556
DEBRA JOSLIN , District Chair of the Alaska Republican Party in
District 35, informed the committee that she was a parent. She
would not want her daughters to have such a serious medical
procedure without her and her husband's input. There are medical
implications to abortions. Ms. Joslin felt that those parents who
beat on their children because of their sexual activity are rare
cases, but there are laws dealing with abusive parents. SB 24
should not be constructed around such a rare case.
BARB RAWALT , District Finance Chair of the Alaska Republican Party
in District 35, noted the illogical nature of parents being
responsible for consent in routine matters of their minor children
while a serious medical procedure like abortion could be performed
on their child without their knowledge. She recommended a
favorable vote on SB 24.
EILEEN BECKER , Director of the Homer Crisis Pregnancy Center and a
mother, noted that she had counseled many teens and seen the
results of the lack of parental consent. She informed the
committee that she is involved in the litigation of a botched
abortion which has taken two years. Ms. Becker felt that it would
be wise for Alaska to make this bill as legally sound as possible
in order to avoid possible litigation, but it is important to get
the law on the books.
TAPE 97-1, SIDE B
Number 585
Ms. Becker expressed concern that if this parental right was
eliminated, other parental rights could follow suit.
SENATOR WARD asked Ms. Becker to forward any information to the
committee that dealt with the effects of abortions on minor women,
especially if the effects were negative. EILEEN BECKER said that
she could give statistics, but not details regarding specific cases
due to confidentiality restrictions. There is not much
documentation regarding the long-range ramifications of an
abortion, however, there are many books available with case
histories.
KERMIT REPPOND reiterated the illogical nature of the current law.
Mr. Reppond discussed the effects of immaturity on a teen life and
noted that with regards to abortion, once the procedure occurs it
cannot be reversed. He indicated that bringing a parent into the
discourse of an abortion would alleviate some of the problematic
results. With regards to the apprehension of moving forward on the
part of legal aspects, Mr. Reppond felt any significant action
taken by the legislature could result in a lawsuit. Mr. Reppond
urged the committee to pass SB 24.
Number 525
CHARLES TRIPP reiterated the sentiment that parental authority has
been eroded. Mr. Tripp discussed a visit at a political forum in
which people were appalled that the state could bundle pregnant
children off to have abortions. Mr. Tripp expressed concern with
the judicial bypass. With the judicial bypass, the court must act
within five days or the abortion is granted and the parents are not
involved. Mr. Tripp believed that the school nurse would have
forms for the judicial bypass that would collect dust for five days
in the court and the child would be granted an abortion. At best,
the judicial bypass creates a five day waiting period for minors.
This is a sad commentary. Perhaps, this illustrates the need for
a parental rights amendment to the constitution. Mr. Tripp also
pointed out that a child may allege abuse in court which would be
sufficient for the court not to notify the parent. The parent does
not have an opportunity to defend himself/herself against the
accusation.
SENATOR LEMAN said that he shared many of Mr. Tripp's concerns. He
explained that SB 24 is modelled after other states who have
enforceable parental consent laws with the judicial bypass. The
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that judicial bypass would be
constitutional.
SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to what sense Mr. Tripp meant that the
state bundles people off to have abortions. CHARLES TRIPP
clarified that he believed that the first person a pregnant child
would see would be a school nurse; when he referred to the state he
meant the school nurse.
Number 464
MARK MOLDENHAUER , as a parent and an Alaskan, asked for the support
of SB 24. This is an important bill for families. Mr. Moldenhauer
said that the privacy propaganda and unconstitutionality that Ms.
Bomengen presented is bunk. He reiterated the concern regarding
the usurpation of parental authority.
NATASHA CALVIN began by asking why a child should be forced to go
to court in order to choose the safest of the three alternatives:
a safe legal abortion, an unsafe illegal abortion, or carrying the
pregnancy to term. Former Surgeon General Everett Koop, found that
for young pregnant girls a safe and legal first trimester abortion
was far safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. The United
Nations' estimates that illegal abortions are 100 to 500 times more
dangerous than safe, legal abortions. Also, the suicide rate among
early teen girls who are unmarried parents is higher than foreign
populations.
Ms. Calvin asked the committee to imagine a 12 or 13 year-old girl
going to Superior Court. Remember the case of Becky Bell who was
from a loving family. Ms. Bell did not want to disappoint her
family, so she had an illegal abortion and died from an infection.
Ms. Bell's father is now educating others on the dangers of
parental consent laws. Ms. Calvin discussed the testimony of
Republican Senator Charles Cook from New York which indicated his
opposition to bills such as SB 24.
Number 403
SENATOR LEMAN believed that Ms. Calvin misrepresented the facts of
the Bell case. The autopsy report of Ms. Bell said she had a
spontaneous abortion or in layman's terms, a miscarriage. NATASHA
CALVIN requested that Senator Leman forward her the evidence
supporting his statements. SENATOR LEMAN said that the Bell case
was very tragic, but the case does not support the notion that
parents should not be involved in their child's abortion. If the
Bell parents had been involved, the appropriate medical attention
could have be used.
VIRGINIA PHILLIPS , member of the Board of Pregnancy Aide in Sitka,
informed the committee that she had been involved with women of all
ages with problem pregnancies even before Roe v Wade. In 1975 she
moved to Alaska and began helping people make decisions about
abortions. The adoption option seems to have been forgotten. Ms.
Phillips believed that even if this bill passes, many parents will
choose abortion for their daughters. Ms. Phillips discussed her
experience at a Native conference in St. Mary's where parents were
frustrated with their daughters coming back from school and being
deeply disturbed. As it turned out, these girls had abortions.
With regards to the breast cancer link to abortions, the Fred
Hutchinson Hospital Cancer Center has proved this link.
Ms. Phillips believed that in every case she had dealt with the
minor and parent relationship had been strengthened when the minor
told her parent about the pregnancy. Most parents love and care
for their children. Ms. Phillips emphasized that the parents are
left to deal with their child's emotional and physical problems
after an abortion. Ms. Phillips urged the committee to pass SB 24.
Number 353
CORALYN OINES reiterated the inconsistency of abortion laws versus
other medical laws. Ms. Oines applauded the committee's
willingness to deal with the parental consent issue. She urged the
committee to pass SB 24.
DIANE WIGHT , on behalf of the Christian Coalition of Alaska, said
that an abortion is not something that can be taken care of with a
bandaid or a kiss like so many other things in a child's life. An
abortion is a surgical procedure that effects the child for the
rest of her life. Ms. Wight believed that an abortion creates an
emotional scar in the child's life and therefore, the parent is
effected by this as well. Ms. Wight supported SB 24.
BRANT MCGEE , Director of the Office of Public Advocacy, informed
the committee that he was present to comment on the role
contemplated in SB 24 for the Office of Public Advocacy. Under
SB 24, the Office of Public Advocacy would be appointed at the
first hearing of the judicial bypass proceeding in order to provide
representation to the minor. Mr. McGee noted that a fiscal note
had been provided based on the assumptions of the latest statistics
regarding the anticipated number of cases. There are innumerable
factors influencing the number of cases and the number of minors
that will seek judicial bypass proceedings. Such factors would be
the availability of the information regarding judicial bypass to
minors as well as the vagaries of judicial proceedings in different
locations. Mr. McGee pointed out that the fiscal note does not
include any assumption regarding the cost of appeals in individual
cases or constitutional challenges to this law. He could not
estimate how much litigation of the judicial bypass would cost.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that Mr. McGee's fiscal note was based on the
statistics of other states with respect to how many girls would not
seek parental consent. The fiscal note does not seem to give
credit for the guidance this procedure would have in leading girls
to carry the pregnancy to term. Mr. McGee seems to conclude that
those girls in other states who are not talking with their parents
are seeking a judicial bypass. Senator Leman hoped that a
significant number of these children would make other decisions,
therefore crediting the fiscal note. Senator Leman suggested that
Mr. McGee give some thought to how that would influence the fiscal
note.
BRANT MCGEE agreed with Senator Leman's comments. Mr. McGee stated
that there is evidence that some states with judicial bypass
actually experienced the opposite effect. For example, in
Minnesota 43 percent of minors seeking abortions utilized the
judicial bypass procedure which is slightly higher than the numbers
upon which the fiscal note is based. The numbers used for the
fiscal note are based upon a national survey regarding the
willingness of teenagers to discuss the potential for an abortion
procedure with their parents. Mr. McGee agreed that this is a
murky area. Furthermore, the data from other states varies widely.
Reviewing the national picture may not be as helpful as it may be
in other areas.
Number 256
SENATOR ELLIS asked if Senator Leman meant that the numbers upon
which the fiscal note are based are incorrect because the
intimidation of the court proceeding or the access to the court
would prompt the minor to make a different decision.
SENATOR LEMAN clarified that his remarks focused on the fact that
the Office of Public Advocacy did not give any credit to the
possibility that the minor would choose to carry the pregnancy to
term and not utilize the judicial bypass procedure. In response to
Senator Ellis, Senator Leman felt such a choice would be made due
to access to good information and many other factors.
SENATOR ELLIS felt that the prospect of going before a judge or
living in an area where a judge is not readily available would pose
the biggest factors in not choosing the judicial bypass option.
Number 232
CRYSTAL BAKER , Alaska Right to Life, informed the committee that
she had a daughter who had two abortions. Her daughter now regrets
those decisions and has emotional problems due those decisions.
Ms. Baker said that she too had emotional problems over the loss of
those children. Ms. Baker did not understand how we have moved
toward the state taking over our families and children. Government
should encourage families to love one another.
THEDA PITTMAN , Pro Choice Alliance, stated that the files from last
year contain all the information necessary to defeat this proposal.
With regards to privacy, pregnancy and abortion are considerably
more serious than having ones ears pierced. SB 24 would not
accomplish its stated purpose, it victimizes young women who cannot
talk with their parents about their pregnancy because of a history
of alcoholism, drugs, and/or abuse. The purpose of SB 24 is to
outlaw abortion.
Ms. Pittman acknowledged that similar laws had passed in other
states. If a minor has good communication with her parents, then
a law is not necessary. National statistics find that 60 to 62
percent of young women who have abortions have talked to their
parents or have parental permission. There is a whole category of
people for whom this law is irrelevant. Ms. Pittman stated that
for those few minors who go to court, the judge approves the
request. For example, over a period of years in Massachusetts of
the 14,000 judicial bypass requests only one resulted in the
notification of the parent. Of the 14 petitions, there were 14
denials. Of those denials, 12 were overturned within days and the
other two became moot when one minor went out of state for an
abortion and the other received parental consent for the abortion.
Ms. Pittman pointed out that this process does delay the process
for the minor woman. No one knows what happens to those who cannot
communicate with their family or go to court. Bill Bell spoke to
that point last year. The claim that Becky Bell spontaneously
aborted is not true, the birth certificate does not say spontaneous
abortion. Ms. Pittman suggested that the public's time and money
should be used in order to support increased family planning
services, comprehensive sex education, birth control and
abstinence. Support programs which foster real parent - teen
communication. Ms. Pittman said that when asked by a colleague if
SB 24 is passed would one girl talk to her parents who otherwise
would not, Senator Leman replied, "No, unfortunately they go to
court." SB 24 is about making young women go to court.
Number 105
SENATOR LEMAN did not recall saying that, but he hoped that SB 24
would encourage teen - parent communication and result in the minor
caring the pregnancy to term. Senator Leman felt it inappropriate
for Ms. Pittman to state the purpose of the bill, that would be her
opinion. One of the objectives of SB 24 is to support the national
policy of making abortions rare which he hoped even Ms. Pittman
could support.
SENATOR ELLIS reiterated the invitation to submit information to
the committee. The supposed link between breast cancer and
abortions and whether an abortion is medically safe are important
areas, especially due to the language in the bill saying,
"protecting the health of minor women."
PAULINE UTTER , speaking as a mother and grandmother, remarked that
the responsibility of a parent is most difficult during the teen
years when the basic objective is to keep them alive. Ms. Utter
resented the fact that the bill refers to children, these are girls
that are being addressed in the bill. The bill does not suggest
that boys should have permission or seek judicial bypass before
having sex. The girls are being punished.
SENATOR LEMAN commented on Ms. Utter's statements regarding
addressing the individuals as children rather than girls. He did
not view the judicial bypass as punishment for girls. Senator
Leman felt that helping people make a decision should be viewed as
loving, compassionate, and caring.
PAULINE UTTER inquired as to how many of these minor women would be
before women judges. SENATOR LEMAN did not know, there are women
judges which would mean that some minor women should be before
women judges.
TAPE 97-2, SIDE A
Number 010
DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director of the Division of Public Health, said
he has a lot of experience in seeing how youth respond in different
cultural settings in small rural communities. He thought a state
law mandating parental notification or consent for minor women who
choose to have an abortion poses significant dilemmas for the minor
and her chosen health care professional. The health care
professional may be forced to delay care or abrogate patient
confidentiality, and in some cases expose a minor to physical or
psychological harm. However, doctors routinely encourage their
minor patients to consult with parents or guardians about
treatment. Dr. Nakamura said that without confidentiality, many
adolescents would not seek timely or appropriate care. Over 40
health care organizations subscribe to that position.
Most parents ordinarily act in the best interests of their children
and minors benefit from their advice and emotional support.
Legislation mandating parental involvement are promoted on the
basis of the theoretical benefits of strengthening family
responsibility and communication. Experience has shown that about
61 percent of unmarried minors have informed one or both parents
about their pregnancy. Over 20 percent of unmarried minors did not
inform their parents, but did inform or involve at least one other
responsible adult.
Dr. Nakamura said that the most frequent reason minors cite for not
informing their parents include the belief that the knowledge would
damage their relationship, the fear it would elevate conflict or
coercion, and the desire to protect a vulnerable parent from stress
and disappointment. One third of minors who do not inform parents
already have experienced family violence and fear it will reoccur.
Although parental involvement in many cases may be helpful, in
others it may be punitive, coercive, and abusive. Threatening a
doctor with punitive measures for allowing his clinical judgement
and practice be guided by what is best for the individual patient
is not at all supportive of the best medical practice.
Number 97
Legislation that precludes any consideration for psychological or
emotional damage is denying the serious consequences from such
omissions. He said that often young women are intimidated by
having to get a judicial bypass because of anticipated fear and
anxiety for loss of confidentiality that is associated with this
action. In a small rural community it is almost impossible for a
young person to access medical care, much less to appear in a
judicial setting. Access for young women in rural communities is
often compromised by the lack of knowledge and by great distances
to a judicial system. There is no mechanism in most rural
communities where confidentiality could be preserved during an
attempt to identify the parent or custodian. Further obstacles to
access to professional guidance and safe medical procedures can
only increase the risk to the life and health of these children.
Dr. Nakamura concluded that for these many reasons the
Administration opposes SB 24.
SENATOR WARD asked how many physicians statewide are trained in
counseling for pregnancy as well as after care counseling. DR.
NAKAMURA replied that it is a routine part of every physician's
training. This is a statement from a physician trained as such.
SENATOR WARD inquired as to how many physicians practicing this are
Alaska Natives and how many are females. DR. NAKAMURA said that he
would forward that information to the committee.
Number 142
SENATOR WARD disagreed with Dr. Nakamura's assumption that this
legislation would hurt rural Alaska. He discussed that he had been
involved with villages in which young girls were shuttled through
a process which resulted in abortions and even sterilizations. The
options were not counseled as the process proceeded. Senator Ward
asked Dr. Nakamura when parental counseling would be an obstacle.
DR. NAKAMURA responded that parental counseling is desired. The
problem is that there are parents that are less skilled in this
form of counseling, and there are children in abusive and coercive
relationships where counseling is not very successful. Dr.
Nakamura reiterated that at least one third of those children who
do not request consent are in abusive and coercive relationships.
In response to Senator Ward , Dr. Nakamura said that providing the
training information for pre-abortion counseling and after care
would be difficult. The levels of training are different. For
those specializing in this area, the training is greater and more
in depth than those who do this as a concerned physician not as
there primary responsibility.
SENATOR WARD remarked that if in fact the physicians are not
trained and abortion mills are being run in Anchorage or Fairbanks
and counseling is not being done, then he wanted that information
in writing. Perhaps, the parents would have an interest in that
information. Senator Ward reiterated that he disagreed with Dr.
Nakamura that this legislation would hurt rural Alaska.
SENATOR LEMAN expressed disbelief that Dr. Nakamura felt that a
physician could make a decision in the best interest of a child
without the parent's involvement. With regards to the
Administration's opposition to the bill, Senator Leman informed Dr.
Nakamura that 78 percent of Alaskans polled on this topic believe
that parental involvement/consent is appropriate and support it.
Sixteen percent did not support parental involvement/consent and
six percent were undecided. Perhaps, that information would affect
the decision of the Administration.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN announced that testimony would be taken on SB 24 at
the meeting on Friday.
Number 220
ANGELA SALERNO , Executive Director of the Alaska Chapter of the
National Association of Social Workers (NASW), opposed SB 24. Ms.
Salerno stated that a pregnant women's right to choose or not to
choose abortion was established by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade.
That decision included all women, even those under age 18. There
are over a million teenage pregnancies in the United States every
year. Over 80 percent of those are unattended, nearly all pregnant
teens are unwed, and 40 percent of them choose abortion.
Ms. Salerno echoed Ms. Pittman's comments that SB 24 will not
promote desirable parental consultation because most children, 62
percent in a nationwide study, are talking with their parents.
NASW does support strong families, but SB 24 will be ineffective
and possibly dangerous to the child in an unstable and troubled
family. Fourteen percent of minors having an abortion believed
that they would face physical violence and 11 percent feared
violence between their parents if the child consulted the parent.
With regards to the risk surrounding abortion, Ms. Salerno stated
that abortion at all stages of pregnancy is safer than childbirth.
The risk of major complications from abortion does increase 15 to
30 percent per week. Therefore, SB 24 would delay abortion which
creates health risks. Since the Supreme Court made its decision,
one of the leading reasons for illegal abortions is the desire to
maintain secrecy. By far illegal abortions are the most dangerous.
Ms. Salerno pointed out that in Alaska the courts' trend is to
assign teenagers greater responsibility for their actions not
imposing further restrictions. This legislation does the opposite.
Number 275
Ms. Salerno informed the committee that under the Reagan
Administration the Surgeon General was directed to develop a report
regarding the detrimental effects of abortion. The Surgeon General
was unable to accomplish that. Ms. Salerno did not believe that
there is any proof at this time that abortion is detrimental to the
long term physical or psychological health of the woman. Ms.
Salerno commented on social links to teen parenthood and social
problems. Kids Count Alaska 1996 which was developed by the
Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of
Alaska reports that in 1992, 52 percent of all mothers collecting
AFDC in Alaska had their first children as teenagers.
SENATOR WARD asked Ms. Salerno if NASW believed that all abortions
are safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. ANGELA SALERNO
answered that statement was a fact. She offered to find the
citation for Senator Ward. SENATOR WARD said that he disagreed
with that statement because it was based on a false premise.
ANGELA SALERNO responded that it was somewhat medically and
statistically proven.
SENATOR LEMAN stated that Ms. Salerno had misinterpreted the U.S.
Supreme Court's rulings by saying that all women were entitled to
abortions. Ms. Salerno failed to discuss the subsequent decisions
which specifically allow states to regulate and restrict children
differently than adults. Senator Leman emphasized that SB 24 sends
the message that teens should be more responsible and involved with
their parents on decisions such as abortion.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN invited those who did not have a chance to testify
to return Friday to testify at that time.
There being no further business before the committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|