HOUSE BILL NO. 35 "An Act relating to notice and consent for a minor's abortion; relating to penalties for performing an abortion; relating to a judicial bypass procedure for an abortion; relating to coercion of a minor to have an abortion; relating to reporting of abortions performed on minors; amending Rule 220, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Rule 20, Alaska Probate Rules, relating to judicial bypass for an abortion; and providing for an effective date." 2:33:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, provided history of the legislation and spoke to anticipated amendments. Representative Gara referred to a request from the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) regarding the issue of consent from foster parents and guardians. Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether Commissioner William Hogan had designated someone to answer the question. Representative Coghill did not know the answer. He had questions regarding how many young teens under foster care have sought abortions. 2:36:17 PM Representative Austerman queried the version of the bill before the committee. Representative Coghill replied that he had introduced version A as the version that had been significantly amended in committees during the previous legislature. He stated that the version was a compromise for him. Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that a previous committee had not amended the bill. Representative Foster reported that his rural district was 83 percent Native and that they valued human life. He referred to historic high fatality rates and how those affected child rearing in the present. He did not think there was an issue with abortion in the past and noted that getting an abortion in the present requires traveling long distances at high expense. He thought the bill pertained more to people in urban areas. 2:39:35 PM Co-Chair Stoltze brought up the issue of amendments. Representative Gara told the committee that he was open to feedback and that he did not plan to introduce all the amendments. He did not believe a fiscal note from DHSS would change the mind of committee. He referenced statements during the previous legislature regarding accurate fiscal notes, and requested one from DHSS before introducing amendments to the bill. Co-Chair Stoltze replied that DHSS had been asked for the fiscal note and could not explain why it was not there. Representative Coghill added that information was needed regarding how many female foster care teens would be in state custody and how many have chosen to elect for an abortion. He pointed out that there are no rules or restrictions at present related to foster care teens who seek an abortion, so the state cannot know the numbers. Co-Chair Stoltze felt that the question was legitimate. Representative Coghill stated that he was open for discussion but that time is running out. 2:43:43 PM Representative Fairclough requested additional information regarding previous testimony by Dr. Whitefield, specifically the 48-hour notice for parents and medical complications that might require a faster abortion. Representative Coghill replied that the 48-hour waiting period would be a legal question. He noted the concurrent nature of the waiting period. He disagreed with the charge that the waiting period was restrictive and believed that it allowed for planning and communication. He referred to a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding the issue, and quoted: "The 48-hour delay provides the parents the opportunity to consult with his or her spouse, family physician to inquire into the competency of the abortion doctor and to discuss the decision on religious moral implications with the minor, and provide needed guidance and counsel on how the decision will affect their future. The delay imposes only a minimal burden on the minor's rights." Representative Coghill added that another issue was where the pregnant teen lived. Whether she lived in an urban or rural area, the teen would not be able to get a pregnancy test one day and abortion the next. The process takes three days; notification follows a similar timeline. 2:47:00 PM Representative Coghill continued that the emergency medical issue was a separate legal question. He had asked Dr. Jay Butler, Alaska's Chief Medical Officer, who believed that the medical instability mentioned on page 2, line 29 is open to interpretation by medical doctors. He was open to an amendment to clarify the language; however, Dr. Butler also said that the remaining language regarding a doctor's judgment about what constitutes a medical emergency was very clear. Representative Fairclough felt that the medical emergency language in the bill needed to be revisited to clarify what a doctor needed to do. She asked about the judicial bypass. She mentioned public testimonies given regarding pregnancies caused by incest and questioned the necessity of a second signature for the judicial bypass. 2:49:59 PM Representative Coghill directed attention to page 3, which discusses the issue of minors being a victim of abuse. He clarified that it was not judicial bypass, but bypass of the judicial system. A court hearing is not required, only a signed statement and a witness that is knowledgeable of the abuse. He stressed that he did not want to create loopholes for perpetrators. He felt that having a witness to the signature was wise. 2:51:39 PM Representative Fairclough shared from personal experience the difficulty in identifying sexual abuse of a minor because of delays in reporting and the lack of physical evidence. Representative Gara felt that everyone on the committee would agree about the importance families having open dialogue about the issues. He had questions about the 48- hour waiting period, and the court process with the affidavit. Regarding the 48-hour waiting period, the bill requires a pregnant minor and her parent to first talk about the pregnancy and come to a decision. Then the bill requires the family to wait another day. A family from a rural area would have to stay in a hotel the two days. He agreed that the family should talk; he questioned the law requiring them to wait two days after talking. 2:54:33 PM Representative Coghill reiterated the concurrent nature of the waiting period. He thought the question was more appropriate for families from urban areas. He quoted the U.S. Supreme Court ruling: "The states' 48-hour waiting period is necessary to enable notified parents to consult with their daughters or their physicians so if they so wish results in a little or no delay, and therefore is constitutional." He thought the notification was appropriate to allow for family deliberation. Representative Gara believed the bill worked if the family is perfect, but all families are not prefect. He gave a hypothetical example illustrating the problem with the 48- hour waiting period. He questioned the family having to wait after making a decision. 2:56:49 PM Representative Coghill believed that 48 hours is a small period of time given the circumstance. He considered the wait an opportunity for deliberation. He outlined a possible series of events. He did not think the waiting period was unreasonable. He thought it was a notification issue. Co-Chair Stoltze asked that the discussion focus on amendments. Representative Gara informed the committee that he would not offer an amendment on the 48-hour waiting period. He reiterated his desire for a response from DHSS. Co-Chair Stoltze agreed that the question was pertinent. Representative Joule spoke to the importance of fiscal notes for the Finance Committee. He thought the administration should provide the information to the committee. Representative Coghill repeated his commitment to finding the requested information. He admitted he had not written to any department head for the fiscal note. 3:02:27 PM AT EASE 3:23:03 PM RECONVENED WILLIAM HOGAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, apologized to the committee regarding the fiscal note. Representative Gara asked for clarification about how the legislation would apply to foster children, especially regarding who would give consent. Commissioner Hogan explained that the state takes over guardianship and makes decisions either directly or with the courts in foster care situations where parental rights have been terminated. If parental rights have not been terminated, DHSS would continue to work with the guardian or natural parents to make the best decision regarding the child. 3:25:35 PM Representative Coghill added that the minor is free to go to court without the custodian's knowledge and have someone assigned to them at no charge, regardless of whether the parents or the state is the custodian. He thought the real question is what would happen if the minor seeks to avoid consent from the state. Representative Gara reiterated that the bill works for good families where the minor has support. He was concerned about the others the bill will affect: the 2,000 children in the state who are in the foster care system, plus many others in bad circumstances in their families. Representative Gara asked whether a minor in foster care would have to get parental consent if the guardian is still the parent who is not living with her. Commissioner Hogan thought the practice would be to talk to the natural parents. 3:28:00 PM Representative Coghill explained that the minor could seek emancipation if a minor in state custody was in a situation with parents who did not care. Representative Gara asked how emancipation would occur for a pregnant minor who has deadlines. Representative Coghill did not know the details. He did know that a minor must demonstrate the ability to be self-sufficient in order to gain emancipation; such a person could seek an abortion without consent. Representative Gara asked for further clarification. Commissioner Hogan explained that the child protective services system first tries to reunite kids with their families. When that is not possible, the next step is to seek placement outside the home. He added that much depends on the minor's history with the family and noted that all decisions about the child's status are made through the court. Co-Chair Stoltze asked if Representative Gara's questions would lead to an amendment to provide a focus for the discussion. 3:32:43 PM Representative Gara stated that his focus was that the bill has been around for six years and no one has considered how it would work in a foster care situation. He wanted the information before he put together an amendment. He did not want one law for minors with parents that required minors in foster care to go to court. Representative Gara asked what would happen for a minor who is in foster care but the natural parent is still the guardian. Commissioner Hogan pointed out that the described situation applies to the typical child who first enters the foster care system. The state must determine over time if the family can be reunited. The intent is to keep the family together if possible. Representative Gara thought it might be unhealthy to make a child obtain consent from a parent who does not take care of her anymore. Commissioner Hogan agreed. Representative Gara asked if those children would then have to go to court and wondered if that would be healthy in a torn family. Commissioner thought the child would have to go to court. He acknowledged the difficulty of the decision. He thought the state would go to court but try to make the process as easy as possible. 3:36:18 PM Representative Gara asked whether social work staff would be involved in the process. Commissioner Hogan answered that social work staff would be involved. Representative Coghill added that current law provides only minimal protection. A child abused while in the foster care system could be coerced by the perpetrator to get an abortion without anyone's consent, even if the minor is in state custody. House Bill 35 would provide recourse for the minor; she can appeal without costs to herself. She can go directly to a doctor or some other adult and make an appeal for an abortion. 3:38:01 PM Representative Gara referred to statistics showing that approximately 50 percent of youth in foster care end up pregnant before age 18. Commissioner Hogan thought the number seemed high and offered to get figures. Representative Gara speculated that additional staff would be needed if the statistics were high. Commissioner Hogan thought that all child protective service workers should have the skills needed and did not believe the department would need additional staff. He noted that the department has increased staff training. 3:39:26 PM Representative Gara requested clarification regarding the training. Commissioner Hogan reported that the department had implemented new training in January 2009. Representative Gara asked who would be the guardian if parental rights had been terminated but the minor has not been assigned a foster care placement. Commissioner Hogan replied that the state would be the guardian; regulations would be needed specifying who that would be. He thought the courts should also be involved. Representative Gara expressed alarm at a federal review reporting that social workers do not see youth more than once every eight months in 30 percent of cases. Commissioner Hogan did not recognize the exact statistic but agreed that the state needs to see youth in foster care more often. Representative Gara wondered if social workers did not know foster children well in many circumstances. Commissioner Hogan hoped that the social worker would develop a relationship with the child. 3:42:17 PM Representative Gara asked if there were cases where the social worker did not spend the necessary time. Commissioner agreed that that does happen on occasion. Representative Crawford described experience with the foster care system. In the four years he had a foster child during an adoption process, the social worker visited once per year. When they called with questions, they sometimes did not get an answer for a month. The state had explained that there is less contact with a stable family; others might have had real problems. He felt the foster care system was understaffed and overworked in Alaska. Commissioner Hogan hoped that the system would respond better to foster parents and that calls would be returned promptly. He emphasized the importance of foster families and apologized. 3:45:55 PM Representative Crawford emphasized that he was not trying to fault social workers, but when the timing was as critical as it would be for a pregnant teen, the system had to respond. Commissioner Hogan agreed. Representative Gara pointed out that in his experience foster youth feel like different rules apply to them. He asked if there could be psychological damage if a foster child was told they must go to court. Commissioner Hogan responded that the state tries to be sensitive to what a foster child needs and works hard to not make the child feel different. 3:48:59 PM Representative Gara wanted a pregnant minor without a stable family to consult with an adult in making decisions. He wondered if the emphasis in the legislation could be on giving notice rather than requiring consent. Commissioner Hogan pointed out that the bill is about consent, not notification. He stated that the department supports Representative Coghill's bill, although it would be willing to work on language. 3:52:29 PM MIKE LESMANN, COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER & LEGISLATIVE CONTACT, OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, detailed the Alaska statute related to a parent's residual rights (AS47.10.084). Under residual rights, birth parents have the right to consent to major medical procedures. If the child is in state custody, state staff is absolutely not authorized to consent to a non- emergency major medical procedure; parents approval are required unless the parent's rights have been terminated by the court. If the parent is not willing to give consent, a court order is required in order for the procedure to take place. Representative Coghill added that the parental rights law did not apply to abortion, which was one of the reasons he thought HB 35 was necessary. The courts have been trying to figure out for years how to balance the rights. 3:54:45 PM Co-Chair Stoltze observed that the bill had not been amended to date and thought it would be amended on the House floor. Representative Gara repeated concerns about expecting a child to obtain consent from a parent who has not been involved. He did not want a social worker or judge who does not know the child to be able to override the child's decision. He wanted a child to have someone rational and caring to talk to. Representative Coghill responded that when someone is in state custody, there is a legal conundrum regarding who should give consent. However, a minor has the right to bypass the legal guardian. A judge would consider the maturity of the minor and the level of stress created by the circumstances. The judge could be a rational decision maker. There could be other rational persons, including the social worker. 3:58:19 PM Representative Gara wanted to know for the record the average tenure of a social worker at the Office of Children's Services. Commissioner Hogan thought a social worker tended to stay two to two and a half years; after that length of time, they tended to stay longer. He added that the vacancy rate was down. 3:59:38 PM Representative Gara wanted language in the legislation stipulating that it applied to good families. Representative Coghill responded that four out of five parts of the bill are targeted for people in less than good circumstances. Representative Gara did not like one of the ways to get out of parental consent, which is to go to a judge that does not know the child. He also did not like a second way, which says a child's affidavit is not good enough, that there must be another witness to the abuse who signs an affidavit. Co-Chair Stoltze asked for amendments. As there were none, he turned to the fiscal notes. Commissioner Hogan spoke to fiscal note number 2 by DHSS, explaining that it was indeterminate because the department did not know which minors enrolled in Medicaid had consent from a parent or guardian; the department does not require consent. He indicated the explanation for costs for abortions and qualifications connected with the Hyde amendment. He stressed the difficulty in finding a dollar amount. CRAIG TILLERY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), commented regarding indeterminate fiscal note number 1 by the Department of Law (LAW). He explained that LAW does not put anticipated litigation costs into fiscal notes; the department tried to provide the committee with information that would give an idea of potential costs involved with litigation. He opined that litigation is likely; the last time a similar law was litigated, LAW ended up spending approximately $500,000 on the case. Both in-house and outside counsel were used in the case. In addition, there was a court award of $940,000 to the prevailing party against the state. He anticipated that in future the state would make every effort to litigate in- house. He thought that costs would be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. In addition, there would be court award costs depending on who won the case. 4:04:23 PM Representative Gara asked if Mr. Tillery had read the bill and the court opinion declaring the last similar law unconstitutional. Mr. Tillery responded in the affirmative. Representative Gara pointed out that the last decision had determined that the parental consent part of the law was unconstitutional. He asked if the court might make a similar determination again about parental consent. Mr. Tillery responded that it was not a foregone conclusion that the law would be declared unconstitutional, although he was not predicting that response again from the court as the vote was close the last time. House Bill 35 modifies the previous law in a way that brings the law closer to the majority opinion that struck it down. In particular, HB 35 adds an exception, a victim of documented abuse, with respect to judicial bypass. In terms of time and ability to navigate the system, HB 35 reduces the time from five business days to three business days; it also reduces appeal time from nine days to eight days. The new proposed law also provides a confidential form for school excuse for a hearing. He added that at least two of the justices will have changed, which could affect a new decision. Representative Gara requested an explanation of the concept "stare decisis." Mr. Tillery explained that "stare decisis" indicates that when faced with a similar situation that has been previously ruled on by a court, the court will continue with the ruling in order to provide some certainty to the way people order their affairs, unless the situation has dramatically changed. Changes could be those in the bill itself, or changes in social mores. He did not believe stare decisis would play a large role because the court, by the very nature of its analysis, would be determining whether there have been sufficient changes in the law to allow it to be declared unconstitutional. 4:08:02 PM Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to REPORT HB 35 from Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Representative Gara OBJECTED. Co-Chair Hawker WITHDREW the MOTION. Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 1: 1. Page 2, lines 3-4: Following "notice": Delete "and consent" 2. Page 3, lines 7-8: Following "performed": Delete "and the parent, legal guardian, or custodian has consented in writing to the performance or inducement of the abortion" 3. Page 3, lines 10-11: Following "notice": Delete "and consent" 4. Page 3, lines 13-14: Following "notice": Delete "and consent" 5. Page 5, line 5: Following "to": Delete "and the consent of" 6. Page 5, line 8: Following "to": Delete "or the consent of" 7. Page 5, line 17: Following "to": Delete "or the consent of" 8. Page 5, lines 20-21: Following "notice to": Delete "or the consent of" 9. Page 5, line 24: Following "the": Delete "consent of" Insert "notice to" 10. Page 6, line 7: Following "to": Delete "or the consent of" 11. Page 6, line 11: Following "such": Delete "consent" Insert "notice" 12. Page 6, line 27: Following "to": Delete "or the consent of" 13. Page 6, line 30-31: Following "to" Delete "or the consent of" 14. Page 8, lines 15-16: Following "to": Delete "and the consent of" 15. Page 8, line 25: Following "to": Delete "and the consent of" 16. Page 9, line 18: Following "to": Delete "and the consent of" 17. Page 9, lines 30-31: Following "to": Delete "or the consent of" Representative Fairclough OBJECTED. Representative Gara explained that the amendment says it is fine to give a non-abusive family notice that the minor is pregnant and seeking an abortion so that the family can discuss the matter, but that consent is not required in cases where consent seems impossible, such as from a foster parent who has not seen the child for two years. Since he did not know how to word the amendment, Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 1. Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 2: Page 3, lines 20-28: Delete all text. Co-Chair Hawker OBJECTED. Representative Gara detailed that Amendment 2 addresses an exception on page 3 that the child does not have to go to court if the child is the victim of physical or sexual abuse but needs a second witness to the abuse. In a small town, the abusive parent who the child is trying not to tell might find out. The amendment says that the second witness might be the abuser or the abuser's spouse; the minor may not be able to secure the second witness statement. Amendment 2 says the minor's affidavit is enough. Representative Coghill objected to the amendment. He asserted that the purpose of the list is to protect the minor in cases of abuse, and that abusers could pressure a minor to go to a doctor for an abortion. 4:13:33 PM Representative Gara clarified that the amendment has to do with page 3, line 20. He thought all could agree that a parent who physically abuses a child loses the right to consent. However, in order for the minor to comply, the minor must fill out the affidavit and then find someone with personal knowledge of the abuse. He pointed out that there may not be another person with personal knowledge to fill out the second affidavit. He thought requiring the second witness would make the provision unusable. 4:15:02 PM Representative Coghill disagreed. He referred to testimony by people who had reached out to minors and found it improbable that no one would know about the abuse. His primary concern was for the minor. Representative Kelly stated that in a chaotic situation, the default position is that someone dies; he would opt for the keeping someone alive. He supported the legislation, while acknowledging that it is not perfect. He believed DHSS would help. He placed equal value on the unborn child and the minor. 4:20:17 PM Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 2. He thought the problem with the amendment reflected the problem with the bill. He thought government was bad on how people should communicate within their home. He stressed that he did not believe that the victim of any abuse should have the duty to go to the abuser to get consent for an abortion. 4:21:38 PM AT EASE 4:26:29 PM RECONVENED Representative Gara indicated that he would not be offering Amendment 3. Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 4: Page 7, line 25: Following "have": Insert "or refrain from having" Co-Chair Hawker OBJECTED. Representative Gara took issue with Section 9 of HB 35. He believed it should be a crime to coerce someone to have an abortion. Coerced is defined as to "restrain or dominate a minor by force, threat of force, deprivation of food, support, or shelter." He did not think the committee should take sides in the pro-life or pro-choice debate; both forcing someone to have an abortion and forcing someone not to have an abortion should be a crime. He intended Amendment 4 to balance the bill. Representative Coghill asserted that the bill's purpose was regulating abortions, not regulating the decision whether to have one. He agreed that coercion is bad in many cases, but did not think the issue was coercion. Co-Chair Hawker MAINTAINED his OBJECTION. Representative Gara argued that the amendment was appropriate to the bill, and that the bill was about abortion. He turned to page 7, line 25, which says that a person may not coerce a minor who is pregnant to have or refrain from having an abortion. He agreed with the part of the bill that wanted families to talk about the issue, but the amendment did not relate to that part of the bill. He did not want to create a crime that makes those on the pro- life side of the issue happy but discriminates against those on the pro-choice side of the issue. He did not want to protect minors who decide not to have an abortion and not protect minors who do decide to have one when the decision is legal. 4:30:31 PM Representative Kelly expressed reluctance to force lawyers on everyone who is counseling the minor against abortion. Representative Coghill repeated that the bill intends to protect the minor if she chooses to have the baby. Should she choose not to have the baby, she would have to demonstrate maturity. He thought part of the question related to an immature person choosing to have an abortion. The amendment would strike at the parental consent part. The legal question would be that a parent disagreeing with a minor about having an abortion could be portrayed as coercion. He maintained that the measure is about the regulation of abortion. Representative Coghill argued the legitimacy of the question of maturity; many other statues address the issue. He read a statement by the Alaska Association of School Boards on maturity: "Students who have not yet graduated from high school are too young to make the life-changing decision to forego basic education." He maintained that accepting the amendment would result in a legal challenge to coercion. 4:34:12 PM Representative Crawford thought it would be wrong to force a child to have an abortion when she did not want one, but it would also be wrong to coerce the minor to do what they wanted by withholding food or shelter. He acknowledged the difficulty of the issue. Representative Austerman pointed out that the whole bill would be legally challenged, not just the part of the bill that would be affected by the amendment. Representative Coghill reported that he had been told by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Planned Parenthood that they definitely intended to challenge the measure. He stressed that he did not like coercion, but maintained that the section of the bill addressed by the amendment relates to coercion and opens the door to legal challenge. 4:38:50 PM Representative Gara asserted that the bill would be challenged. Representative Coghill did not think the issue was so clear. He read part of the Supreme Court decision saying that the relocation of fundamental right from minors to parents is "constitutionally suspect." He thought the court was very definite that the parents had the right and definite that the minors are immature in their choices. The Supreme Court was looking for less restrictive means; he believed less restrictive means were crafted into HB 35. Representative Gara understood the philosophical points, but pointed out that the amendment was narrower. He did not believe it was right to have a law that made it a crime if a person was coerced into having an abortion, but would not stand behind a person who is coerced to not have a legal abortion. He asserted that the amendment says that either kind of coercion should be illegal. A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Crawford, Gara, Joule, Salmon, Austerman OPPOSED: Fairclough, Foster, Kelly, Thomas, Stoltze, Hawker The MOTION FAILED (5-6). 4:43:03 PM Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 5: Page 2, line 27: Following "death": Insert "or a substantial risk to the minor's health" Page 2, line 28-30: Delete all text. Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED. Representative Gara explained that the bill has a provision that says that in the case of a medical emergency, the doctor can perform an abortion to save the minor from physical harm or death. He thought the wording was difficult. On line 29, the bill says that the physical harm that would be avoided must be proved to be irreversible. He asserted that a doctor cannot always know if the injury is irreversible; a doctor could be subject to criminal prosecution. The amendment would clarify that in a medical emergency, an abortion can be performed if necessary to prevent death, or to prevent serious risk to the minor's health. Representative Coghill responded that he would object less to the amendment if it said to "physical health" so that it would not be open to a subjective interpretation. Representative Gara agreed and offered an amendment to Amendment 5, to insert the word "physical" before "health." There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Stoltze asked if there was continued objection to Amendment 5 as amended. Representative Kelly OBJECTED. Representative Coghill stated that he would not speak against the amendment. Representative Kelly WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 5 as amended was PASSED. Co-Chair Hawker MOVED CSHB (FIN) 35 from Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. 4:49:51 PM Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion. He thought the main part of the bill presents legitimate discussion. He wanted minors to discuss matters such as abortion with their parents. However, he did not know how a law could be written to require families to talk to one another, especially when the family is dysfunctional or when the minor does not have a family. He had concerns about foster children in particular. He took issue with a provision in the bill that states that there has to be a 48-hour wait after a parent consents to a minor's abortion. He pointed out that legislative researchers reported that there is no 48-hour waiting period for any other procedure in Alaska. He thought the provision was disrespectful to the parent's choice. He reiterated concerns about the second person required to sign an affidavit. 4:52:44 PM Representative Kelly agreed that the bill was a very difficult one. He opined that the default position should be choosing life and not death in a confusing and chaotic situation. He thought the sponsor had found a balance. Representative Joule thought the issue was highly charged and he appreciated the respectful tone of the debate. 4:55:13 PM Representative Crawford concurred that the issue is tough. He discussed his views of abortion and the topic of when life begins. He pointed out that there were abortions before it was made legal, and conjectured that there would still be abortions if they were made illegal. He believed that Planned Parenthood had reported that there were 18 in the past year that HB 35 would have covered; 14 of the girls had involved parents and 4 did not. He feared that HB 35 would force the four to have underground abortions and questioned whether the bill would fix the problem it was purporting to fix. He emphasized his desire to pass legislation that would not have unintended negative consequences. 4:59:40 PM There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB (FIN) 35 was REPORTED out of Committee with a no recommendations and two previously published fiscal notes: FN1 (LAW), FN2 (HSS). Representative Foster noted that in the Bush, hospitals fall under federal guidelines and are exempt from state regulations. The doctors and nurses answer to other laws. He wondered if Bush hospitals still operate this way. Co-Chair Hawker noted that Commissioner Hogan would get a formal response to the question. 5:02:08 PM AT EASE 5:12:00 PM RECONVENED