HB 37 - PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION [Contains discussion of HB 65.] Number 006 CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN announced they would first consider HB 37, "An Act relating to a requirement that a parent, guardian, or custodian consent before certain minors receive an abortion; establishing a judicial bypass procedure by which a minor may petition a court for authorization to consent to an abortion without consent of a parent, guardian, or custodian; amending the definition of `abortion`; and amending Rules 40 and 79, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508, and 512.5, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska Administrative Rules." CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members they would be working from draft committee substitute, Version "F", dated 03/04/97. Number 138 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, prime sponsor of HB 37, presented the changes made in the draft committee substitute. He advised members that the proposed legislation would require parental, or judicial consent for a doctor to perform an abortion on a minor child. Representative Kelly pointed out that the proposed legislation was not about abortion, but parental rights. He added that it was a common sense approach, and put into law what people instinctively knew, which was that parents had the right to be involved in their children's medical care. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members he introduced HB 37 to enable current law to require parental consent for a minor's abortion and make it enforceable. He noted that a parental consent law had been on the books since 1970; however, in 1976, an attorney general's opinion stated that it was unconstitutional without the provision of a judicial bypass. That opinion referenced Supreme Court cases and decisions that required a judicial bypass in any state that had a parental consent law in order to pass constitutional muster. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that the judicial bypass provision would enable a teenager to seek permission from a judge as an alternative to parental consent for abortion. He noted that the reason for parental consent was clear, and pointed out that parents were required to provide permission prior to their child taking an aspirin at school, permission to go on field trips, as well as parental permission to view an R-rated film. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated that under current law, a young girl could receive an abortion which could have the potential of being a life threatening procedure. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that parental involvement laws in other states had had a positive impact. It was his belief teenagers stood to benefit from the counsel of their parents in what could be a very difficult time in their life. Representative Kelly also understood that there were abusive family situations, which was one reason for including a judicial bypass provision. Number 391 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Representative Kelly explain the three changes in the draft committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that on page 2, line 26, the words "or induced" had been added. He pointed out that the previous version made references to "woman", which was not appropriate, as the bill addressed minors, so "woman" was changed to "minor", throughout the bill. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY continued, and pointed out that on page 7, line 23, the draft committee substitute added a new subsection (n), which clarified the appeal process. He explained that information about filing a claim would be available at each superior court, district court or magistrate offices throughout the state. Representative Kelly advised members that section also stipulated that there was no filing fee or court costs for the minor, and an attorney would be appointed for the minor. He noted that the minor could also request a telephonic hearing, which would address some of the concerns regarding rural Alaska and the inability to travel to a larger city to seek a judicial bypass. Representative Kelly added that it would be necessary for a minor, in rural Alaska, to travel to a larger city in order to get an abortion, as well. Number 694 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ noted that the bill addressed the rights of parents and asked what would happen if the parent wanted the minor to have an abortion, but the minor wanted to have the baby. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY felt the parent's wishes would prevail. REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT pointed out that the term "unmarried" was included in the draft committee substitute, as well as the previous version, and questioned the intent of that word. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY believed it had to do with an emancipated youth, adding that in order to get a marriage license, the individual would have to be emancipated. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Dr. Judith Kohler in Chicago address the committee on the proposed legislation. JUDITH KOHLER, Senior Legislative Counsel, Americans United for Life, advised members they were a not for profit, public interest law firm that had been involved in all abortion litigation around the country before the U.S. Supreme Court, since, and including Roe v. Wade, in 1972. She expressed that she worked throughout the 50 states with state legislatures that were considering passing laws relating to parental consent, such as HB 37. MS. KOHLER advised members she would focus on the issue of constitutionality under federal provisions, as well as to the constitutionality of HB 37 under Alaska's State Constitution. MS. KOHLER reiterated Representative Kelly's statement, that the proposed legislation was not about abortion, or preventing a woman's right to choose. Ms. Kohler pointed out that the bill stemmed from a different line of court cases, not Roe v. Wade, or Planned Parenthood v. Danforth. She stated that those two cases gave a minor, or an adult, the right to have an abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Ms. Kohler advised members that the parental involvement laws stemmed from a line of cases that started with Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 411(1990), which was a two- parent notice law that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 1990. MS. KOHLER expressed that subsequent cases in the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania affirmed the right of a state to regulate the abortion procedure of a minor because of the state's interest in protecting the health and safety of minor children. She pointed out that HB 37 was consistent with the provisions in the Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Ohio laws, which require parental consent or a judicial bypass, in order for a minor to receive an abortion. MS. KOHLER stated with regard to the judicial bypass procedure in Hodgson v. Minnesota, that during the trial, on that particular law, the evidence came in and showed that over the five year period that the law was in effect, 3,573 requested a judicial bypass. Of those 3,573 requests, 3,558 petitions were granted; six petitions withdrawn and nine petitions were denied. One minor appealed her petition, and the appeal was affirmed. Number 1006 MS. KOHLER advised members that 34 states had parental involvement laws, of which 27 were enforceable, with the remainder being in the same position as Alaska. Alaska's law was unconstitutional because it did not include a judicial bypass provision, and HB 37 would rectify that position. She noted that with the passage of similar laws in other states, teenage abortion rates decreased, as did teen pregnancy rates and birth rates. MS. KOHLER advised members that she felt HB 37 could be successfully litigated, if enacted into law, in a court proceeding. She pointed out that the state law in Florida had been struck because of constitutional or privacy grounds. However, she expressed that the state of California had upheld its parental consent law over privacy grounds challenges. Ms. Kohler advised members that the Alaska Supreme Court had never applied the privacy provision to any of Alaska's abortion laws. She pointed out that Alaska's State Constitution also protected parental rights, and reiterated that HB 37 could be successfully litigated. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Ms. Kohler fax the remainder of her testimony to the committee, as there were numerous members of the public waiting to testify on the proposed legislation. Number 1185 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Kohler to cite the Pennsylvania case which allowed the states to include additional provisions on an abortion proceeding. MS. KOHLER advised members that case was entitled Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and that decision was issued in 1992. She explained that the decision enabled all of Pennsylvania abortion laws to include parental consent, and a woman's right to know legislation that required informed consent for every woman prior to the abortion procedure. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how many of the 34 states had express privacy guarantees in their Constitutions. MS. KOHLER advised members there were only five states that had express privacy guarantees within their state Constitutions, and only one state, Florida, had exercised that privacy provision to strike a parental involvement law. She noted that California had an express privacy provision also, and it upheld the parental consent law, even over a privacy challenge. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referenced the Minnesota statute and asked how many young women, under the age of 18, died from abortions prior to the enactment of the statute, and how many had died subsequent to the enactment of the statute. MS. KOHLER advised members there was no information relating to that in the court cases that were before the U.S. Supreme Court, although she pointed out that members could request that information from the State Department of Public Health in the state of Minnesota, because they did have a reporting law in effect. MS. KOHLER noted that Representative Berkowitz had posed several questions in another committee, and she reiterated her previous responses to the House Judiciary Committee. She advised members that the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons gave the U.S. Supreme Court information on the issue of migration. That information reflected that migration out of the state of Minnesota, for the purpose of receiving an abortion, was not conducted on any significant scale. Since that time, states surrounding Minnesota had enacted parental involvement laws. Ms. Kohler stated that the solution to migration was not to abolish the public health standards of stricter states, but to strengthen those standards. She pointed out that the bill addressed the travel problem in the state of Alaska by including a telephone provision, so it would be unlikely that Alaska teens would migrate to Canada, or the lower 48. Number 1379 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Kohler might address the question posed by Representative Berkowitz in a case where a minor did not want an abortion, but the parents wanted the child to have an abortion. MS. KOHLER advised members that most states had state laws that prohibit coercion, and would certainly prohibit the coercion of a person to have an invasive medical procedure. She felt that situation would have to be researched under Alaska state law. Number 1430 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that the proposed legislation did not address that situation. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that members keep their comments to the issue of parental consent. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the organization Ms. Kohler was with was a parental rights group. MS. KOHLER advised members Americans United for Life was a law firm that assisted states in drafting laws, and assist in the defense of those laws before either federal or state courts. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed that Ms. Kohler did not answer his question. MS. KOHLER, basically, reiterated her first response. Number 1497 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked if her organization assisted in the drafting of HB 37. MS. KOHLER advised members that they assist in drafting model legislation, and it was her understanding that Senator Leman and Representative Kelly had drafted proposed legislation consistent with the model provided by the Americans United for Life. She pointed out that the model legislation was based upon the law that was successfully litigated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in 1992, as well as on the law that was enacted in Minnesota that was affirmed in Hodgson v. Minnesota. CHAIRMAN GREEN thanked Ms. Kohler for her testimony, adding that the committee would appreciate receiving her written comments and backup information. Number 1552 DAVID ROGERS, representing the Alaska Women's Lobby read the Lobby's prepared statement into the record as follows: "The Alaska Women's Lobby agrees with the sponsors and supporters of this bill. Minor's should talk to their parents before any decisions are made about a teenage pregnancy. We are told that most do. But like it or not, some won't. Often because they come from homes where physical violence or emotional abuse are prevalent because their pregnancy is the result of child sexual abuse by a family member, a stranger or a date rape. And don't be surprised if many of these same kids won't talk to a judge either, even if that judge is right down the street. The court room is intimidating enough for most adults; it can be overwhelming for teens. And, Mr. Chairman, how can you guarantee confidentiality? "Mr. Chairman, under this law, these adolescents, caught between two equally unacceptable alternatives, will be at risk and in danger, either due to delays in seeking appropriate medical advice, or because they take things into their own hands and run away, or risk their lives by having illegal, or self induced abortions. This has happened in other states and will happen in Alaska. That is quite a price to pay to send a message that most minors don't need to hear. "In any event, according to the Alaska Medical Association, there is no convincing evidence that these kinds of laws will actually get kids to talk to their parents who wouldn't otherwise. In the words of Judge Donald Alsup [Ph], a federal district judge from Minnesota, 'A minor's unplanned pregnancy is a crisis which is not conducive to an attempt to build good family communication.' Nor are we convinced that these laws will reduce abortion or birth rates. In fact, we have statistics that suggest the opposite. So for us, the potential and unintended harm that may result from this legislation, clearly outweighs the potential, but unlikely good of encouraging parental communication and lowering birth and abortion rates. That is best handled by developing a comprehensive prevention program which prevents the pregnancy in the first place. "As a starting point for this discussion, we encourage you to review Three a Day: Children Having Children in Alaska, a report prepared by the Senate Advisory Council in 1989 for Senator Pearce. It's important to keep in mind that parental consent is not always required under state law for significant actions by a minor. And what could be more appropriate for an additional exception than decisions concerning the unique, and intensely personal experience of pregnancy. It is particularly ironic that under this bill, a pregnant teen must get permission to have an abortion, but will continue to be considered mature enough to make independent parental decisions for her newborn child. "Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, the thousands of Alaskans represented by the Alaska Women's Lobby oppose HB 37. Thank you, Mr. Chairman." This ends Mr. Roger's prepared testimony which was read into the record. Number 1692 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referenced the statistics referred to by Mr. Rogers relating to the Minnesota law, and asked if he had copies available. MR. ROGERS advised members that he could provide copies to the committee. Number 1752 CHAIRMAN GREEN took testimony via teleconference from Tok, Alaska, and asked that Jill Yrjana address the committee. JILL YRJANA, represented herself as a parent, and advised members that having no consent took away her parental rights too. She noted that her concern was that the judicial bypass provision, in other states, did not reduce the number of abortions taking place. Ms. Yrjana stated that through testimony, she understood that of those who chose to go through the judicial bypass process, only 15 out of approximately 3000 were not granted. She stated that it seemed to her that teenagers of abusive homes, or who did not want to talk to their parents, could talk to a doctor who would then be responsible for contacting DFYS, or some other organization, to help the teen. Number 1825 ELIZABETH PAWUK testified via teleconference from Petersburg, Alaska, she read her statement into the record as follow: "I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for being able to speak in support of HB 37. First of all, it is not the business of government to take over the roles of parents. Parents should provide the financial, emotional and physical care for their children. Providing abortions without parental consent drives another wedge between parents and civil authorities, generating more confusion in our young over who is in charge. At the same time, if this HB 37 is being considered, I'd also like to have you all consider this too. I would like to encourage legislators to include an amendment. Sadly, alternative situations do result in which a young girl recognizes the sanctity of human life, but her parents do not. She needs to have equal recourse if her parents are coercing her to consent to an abortion. "I am opposed to any and all abortions. Call it what you will, justify it as best you can. It is, and always will be the killing of innocent human life. Once priceless, human life in this country now has a price. And like all items in a capitalistic society, life is now subject to the law of supply and demand and the selfish desires of man. "If the medical profession of this country had had the backbone and moral stamina it should have had, abortions would never have been legalized. Because of the medical profession's weak and unconscionable silence, the government of this country is being forced to fill the void. I applaud each and every one of you pro- life legislators. Yours is a difficult and challenging task, but a most sacred and worthy one. I thank you a thousand times." That concludes the prepared statement of Elizabeth Pawuk. Number 1917 JOHN MARX testified via teleconference from Dillingham, Alaska and was concerned as to whether the fifth business day would be enough to hear cases, and if the judicial bypass procedure would allow a minor to go before a judge without having their parents consulted or notified. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that cases going before a judge would be expedited just because of the nature of the case, and would rise to the top of the court calendar. He thought Mr. Marx's question was well founded, and it would be considered by committee members during deliberation on the bill. Number 1986 ROSE TYONE testified via teleconference from Glennallen, Alaska. She advised members she was in support of both HB 37 and HB 65. She stated that from an emotional standpoint, and having had an abortion in 1967, the last 20 years had involved a lot of suffering. Ms. Tyone noted that it took her until approximately four years ago to realize there was such a thing as post-abortion syndrome. She did not feel there was enough information available to the young people relating to abortions. Ms. Tyone expressed that now she wished she had gone to her parents and talked with them about her dilemma. MS. TYONE stressed the importance of educating teens about pregnancy and abortions, and felt that pictures of the various abortion procedures would bear heavy on a teenager's mind. STEVE MAILLY testified via teleconference from Glennallen, Alaska, and thank all pro-life representatives and the sponsors of HB 37 and HB 65 for introducing the legislation. He expressed that there were citizens who felt disenfranchised because this was a nation that endorsed murder. Mr. Mailly asked that the legislators do everything in their power to pass both pieces of proposed legislation. He believed in parents being wards of their children, not the courts and not the state. CHAIRMAN GREEN moved on to take testimony from Fairbanks, Alaska. Number 2180 PATRICIA HUTCHINSON testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, Alaska. She stated that she was a member of the Alaska Association of Family and Community Education and was concerned about the neglect of children that could occur under HB 37. Ms. Hutchinson pointed out that as currently written, the proposed legislation erodes the right of parental consent which had already been established. She felt the proposed legislation made it too easy for the court to deal irresponsibly with a child. Ms. Hutchinson expressed that she was testifying to the proposed committee substitute, HB 0037 (B). She referred to page 5, line 3, subparagraph (c), which would give the court the responsibility of parental consent. Ms. Hutchinson advised members that the proposed legislation should be amended to give the court the responsibility of parental observation and care of the child following the procedure. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out to Ms. Hutchinson that the committee was discussing Version "F", a proposed draft committee substitute of HB 37, and asked if she was referring to Sec. 18.16.030. MS. HUTCHINSON stated that she was referring to that section. She advised members that if the hearing required was not heard, automatic consent would take place and she felt that language should be struck from the bill. Ms. Hutchinson pointed out that the state of Alaska did not consider a child of 17 years of age to be sufficiently mature, and well enough informed to make an intelligent decision as to whether to get a tetanus shot, have a wart removed or drive a car or a boat. MS. HUTCHINSON pointed out that any child who could fill out two forms; one at the court house and one at the clinic, could subject herself to an abrasive elected procedure. She noted that currently, HB 37 did not address the issue of health care for complications, or for education to modify behavior for the purpose of preventing future pregnancies. She felt the proposed legislation took those rights and responsibilities away from the parents. She asked if those responsibilities were being given to the court or to the child. CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that the language had been drafted in that manner because of a requirement relating to the judicial bypass procedure. Number 2332 ROBERTA FOSTER testified via teleconference from Naknek, Alaska. She advised members that she approved of the passage of the parental consent before abortion law. Ms. Foster noted that the intent of the legislation was to strengthen the family structure, and pointed out that to allow a minor child to receive medical help, of any sort, from others without parental knowledge, would not strengthen the family. MS. FOSTER stated that with the push for a school based medical clinic coming through Goal [Ph] 2000, the increase of pro-abortion involvement could greatly increase the non-parental notification unless the bill offers protection for parental rights. MS. FOSTER advised members she would like the legislation to include a definition for the word "informed". She felt the girl should be informed that she, indeed, would be taking the life of an unborn, human person. Ms. Foster advised members she strongly endorsed the spirit of HB 37, and encouraged passage of the bill. Because Ms. Foster would not be available to testify on HB 65, she expressed her support of that bill as well. Number 2430 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Ms. Foster to elaborate on her views relating to schools and Goal 2000. MS. FOSTER advised members that through Goal 2000, and the possibility of other legislation at the national level, that there would be a push for school-based clinics on the school premises. She advised members that if the parental notification bill did not pass, some of those school-based clinics would have the option of recommending abortions if a teenage girl approached them for counsel. Ms. Foster felt there could be an increase in the number of abortions because of school-based clinics. TAPE 97-30, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that he was not aware of any Alaska school-based clinics who were counseling or promoting abortion. KATHRYN CARSSOW testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She advised members that she worked hard throughout her school years, and was very active in extracurricular activities. Ms. Carssow advised members she taught bible school at the Presbyterian Church, in which she was raised. (Audio-breakup--cut-out). MS. CARSSOW advised members that her parents were active republicans, expressed that her mother was a warm hearted person who she could talk to and count on for support. MS. CARSSOW expressed that midway through her senior year in high school she became pregnant. She stated that she knew she could confide in her mother; however, felt it was her mistake, and her problem. Ms. Carssow stated that she knew that as soon as she confided in any adult, the choice of whether or not to carry out the pregnancy would be out of her hands. She stated that HB 37 would take the decision out of the hands of the girl who was pregnant. Because Ms. Carssow felt she could not approach anyone with her situation, she turned to an illegal abortionist. MS. CARSSOW advised members that her parents could have found her lying on the floor in the hallway of their home passed out and bleeding. Her parents would have been horrified if they had found her unconscious. Ms. Carssow was thankful to have lived through the ordeal. She wanted members to realize what was likely to happen if safe and legal abortions were no longer available to desperate teenage girls who could not get their parent's permission to receive an abortion. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Ms. Carssow if she was aware of the judicial bypass provision in HB 37. MS. CARSSOW advised members she was aware of that provision; however, as a young girl back in 1969, she would have gone with the illegal abortion rather than go through a public process and face a judge. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out to the LIO teleconference operator in Anchorage that the committee was experiencing audio problems which appeared to originate in Anchorage, and asked that they look into the problem. Number 200 DEBRA JOSLIN provided testimony via teleconference from Delta Junction, Alaska. She urged passage of HB 37, adding that she was not concerned so much with the specifics and language, but the intent of the bill. Ms. Joslin pointed out that she was the mother of two girls, and she would not want them to have an abortion without the privilege of having their mother's input and counsel. Ms. Joslin pointed out that abortion was a life-altering experience for the girl, and a life-ending experience for the baby. MS. JOSLIN pointed out that if parental consent was not afforded, the teenager would proceed to abortion without any benefit of counsel. Number 265 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Joslin if she would give consent for her daughter to have an abortion under any situation. MS. JOSLIN's response was that she would not. She believed abortion was the killing of an unborn life. Ms. Joslin confessed that she had an abortion at the age of 18. She noted that it was legal and very easy to get through Planned Parenthood. Ms. Joslin explained that Planned Parenthood did not counsel her on the cons of the procedure, only the pros. She advised members that if she had known then, what she knew today, she would have never gotten an abortion. The counseling she received referred to the baby as "just a piece of tissue". Ms. Joslin advised members that it was 1976 when she received an abortion, and she was still sorry for having the abortion, adding that she would not want her daughter to have to go through what she had gone through. Number 321 DAN DAVIS provided testimony via teleconference from Delta Junction, Alaska. He advised members he supported both HB 37 and HB 65. Mr. Davis pointed out that parents, in most cases, had the best and greatest interest in their minor daughters, as well as preborn children. He expressed that parents were the ones bearing children, not the state of Alaska, or any other state or government entity. Mr. Davis explained that parents needed to be involved in situations such as abortions. He felt that, in most cases, unwanted pregnancies were the result of irresponsibility, and asked that members support both HB 37 and HB 65. SHARON WAISANEN testified via teleconference from Kenai, Alaska. She advised members she was the mother of three adult children, of which two were adopted. Ms. Waisanen expressed that she was also a retired school teacher and high school counselor. She advised members it was amazing to her that parents felt that the state of Alaska must legislate communication between parents and children. Ms. Waisanen did not believe legislation would stop the act of abortions, and did not believe it would make children communicate more with their parents. She noted that through all the years she worked with the school system, she worked hard at promoting communication between parents and children. Ms. Waisanen noted that there were many parents who did not desire communication with their children, pointing out that the state of Alaska had the greatest number of neglect, abuse and molestation of minors than any other state. MS. WAISANEN expressed that many teens did not have two parents, or even a guardian to care for them. She was aware of teenagers sleeping in tents, through the winter months, in the Kenai Peninsula area whose parents had abandoned them by the time they become sexually active. MS. WAISANEN felt that most minors did consult with their parents. However, she expressed that it was important to have parental training programs because she felt that was the only way to prevent unwanted parents and unwanted pregnancies. Ms. Waisanen advised members it would be necessary to support those types of programs and provide funding for them. She asked that members not waste Alaska's money by passing anti-choice bills that might not stand up in the court system, but rather, use the money to support education and planned parenting. Ms. Waisanen asked that members to vote against HB 37 and HB 65. DICK WAISANEN testified via teleconference from Kenai, Alaska. He advised members he also a retired high school counselor. Mr. Waisanen pointed out that prior to his retiring, he worked with numerous teenagers, many of whom shared both the joys and sorrows with their parents. He expressed that he, unfortunately, worked with many teenagers who were deathly afraid to even tell their parents their grades were going to drop below a C because of the possibility of physical abuse. He believed young women, with good relationships with their parents, would seek their assistance in the case of an unwanted pregnancy as soon as the situation became known. Mr. Waisanen advised members that many other young women could not seek assistance from their parents because of the real danger of physical abuse, and were also not likely to seek or trust the help of the judicial system. MR. WAISANEN pointed out that to legislate mandatory consent laws would impose a great danger on many of Alaska's young women. He felt the state would be much better off to put funds towards better planning within the schools and community health clinics. Mr. Waisanen opposed both HB 37 and HB 65. SALLY APOKEDAK testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. She advised members she was 16 the first time she became pregnant and approached the Planned Parenthood clinic and told them she wanted an abortion. She expressed that she told the counselor that her father would kill her if he knew she was pregnant. Ms. Apokedak advised members that the counselor, rather than ask if she was exaggerating, or attempt to find out if she had suffered violence at her father's hand, hugged her and told her what an assured young women she was. Ms. Apokedak explained that the counselor assured her that she was legally an adult and her parents did not need to be involved. Ms. Apokedak further stated that the counselor assured her that Medicaid would pay for the abortion and made an appointment for her with a doctor, the welfare office and a hospital, and stressed the need to act quickly. MS. APOKEDAK stated that three days later she was not pregnant. The doctor sent her home to her mom and dad with a three-month supply of birth control pills. Ms. Apokedak pointed out that she did not give her informed consent, but deliberately remained uninformed. She stated that if she would have been forced to face her current wrath and weeping, there would have been no concern for her self esteem and no stroking of her ego, that she would have been made to feel ashamed. Ms. Apokedak advised members that she would have had to think about where she had been, where she was going and think about the baby's future. And that would have been so tough that she might not have gotten pregnant, and a second abortion the following year. Number 659 ARTHUR HIPPLER, Executive Director, Alaska Right to Life advised members they were a 9000 person membership organization which supported HB 37. He pointed out, however, that it was only a first step and could very well be stronger, and provide stronger controls to include informed consent for the child, herself, even if she requested judicial bypass. MR. HIPPLER stated that he heard a statement made by a pro-abortion state representative on the radio recently who hoped there would be a moderate way to address the difficult question of abortion. Mr. Hippler advised members that he was curious as to what would be a "moderate" way of keeping a parent from preventing the murder of their unborn grandchild. Number 729 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what Mr. Hippler felt the ultimate goal was. MR. HIPPLER advised members that the ultimate goal was the elimination of abortion, but beyond that, he felt the power of the parent must be reinstituted to control the child. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Hippler if he had children, and if so, was there any situation in which he would consent to his child having an abortion. MR. HIPPLER advised members he did have children, and would not consent to his child having an abortion, quote: "Not while I'm still breathing." ERNIE LINE testified via teleconference from Mat-Su. He advised members he was 83 years old, had been a republican all his life and believed, implicitly, in the rights of women. Mr. Line pointed out that women were not allowed to vote until 1920, which he felt was too late. MR. LINE expressed that with HB 37, he read about compelling state interests but did not see it defined anywhere, adding that he was not sure what a "compelling state interest" was, unless it was just a statement made by someone, and thus it was supposed to be accepted. MR. LINE explained that the items under Section 1(a) were all qualified statements; i.e., "often lack the ability; can be; are not necessarily; parents ordinarily possess;". Mr. Line stated that the only one of those seven items that might stand the light of day, was number seven; "parental involvement legislation enacted in other states has shown to have a significant effect in reducing abortion, birth, and pregnancy rates among minors." MR. LINE advised members that his fear that the effect, of the proposed legislation, could well be the cause of the pregnant woman, under 16, to seek an abortion where she should not. He stated that as soon as legal abortion disappears from America, many young women would be faced with the situation of seeking an illegal abortion, as was done with one of the previous speakers who almost died. He added that during his time, he lived through the great depression, and pointed out that that was the time of illegal abortions. Mr. Line expressed that many women were unable to bear children after the illegal abortions they obtained, and many women died because of complications resulting from the illegal abortion. Mr. Line felt that was what would happen again if the legislature persisted in passing laws such as HB 37. Mr. Line adamantly opposed HB 37. ROBERTA STEVENS testified via teleconference from Anchorage, and advised members that it was her belief that parental consent for a minor to have an abortion was an invasion of privacy. It appeared to be an effort to deny the right to abortion, entirely, to minors. Ms. Stevens stated that if a minor felt she could talk to her parents about her decision, she would, and if not, the lines of communication were obviously broken down and the minor would not communicate. Ms. Stevens advised members that bringing the subject of an unwanted pregnancy to the attention of a parent was not the time to begin to communicate with the parents. MS. STEVENS pointed out that it was the person carrying the fetus whose life was most impacted by a pregnancy, not the life of the minor's parents. She stated that if the proposed legislation became law, it would create more problems, be unfair, and was another example of the religious-right trying to force their belief on others. MS. STEVENS referenced the testimony of the women who suffered for 20 years because of post-abortion trauma, and stated she had not heard of anyone suffering from post-birth trauma. Ms. Stevens advised members she was a person who had been forced to breed prior to abortion being legalized. She told members that she had suffered from post-birth trauma, and imagined that many other women, in her age group, had suffered for years because they were forced to breed against their will. MS. STEVENS requested that HB 37 not pass. Number 1078 MAESHA CHAMPION-READ testified via teleconference from Anchorage, Alaska. She advised members she was a mother of two, soon to be three. Ms. Champion-Read advised members she strongly opposed HB 37. She pointed out that through her experience, as a family therapist, you could not legislate communication, or legislate strengthening families, as was stated in the sponsor's statement. Ms. Champion-Read expressed that the state had no business of invading the privacy and rights of a person whether they're pregnant or not. [Audio breakup--fade out.] She stated that HB 37 and HB 65 involved an effort to deny a women's constitutional right to privacy. Ms. Champion-Read felt the legislature should look towards expending funds towards prevention, and not waste the public's time and money on legislation that would not hold up in court. Number 1198 JANET WALLACH testified via teleconference from Anchorage, Alaska. She expressed that she had previously taught school, and was also a social worker who had worked with children for approximately 20 years. Ms. Wallach advised members she would testify against HB 37 and HB 65. She found it personally abhorrent that more than 200 years after the establishment of a democratic government, there were people, and especially elected state representatives, attempting to take away individual rights. [Audio--fade-out continued.] Ms. Wallach pointed out that she cherished her personal rights, including her right to privacy. She felt it was unconscionable for state representatives to spend their time, and the tax payers' money, on less than pressing issues. Ms. Wallach advised members that chipping away at the right to abortion, for anyone, should not be within the purview of the state. She expressed that the issue had been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and was not one of the graver problems within communities of the state. Ms. Wallach pointed out that in many cases, abortion was not a first choice, but the last option to many women. CHAIRMAN GREEN again asked that the Anchorage LIO teleconference operator check out the equipment, as testimony was still breaking up. Number 1310 ALICE JOHNSTONE testified via teleconference from Sitka, Alaska. She advised members that she was a mother, grandmother and a great- grandmother. Ms. Johnstone agreed with the testimony of the last four people who testified. As was with the testimony of Mr. Line, Ms. Johnstone expressed that she also lived during the time there were many illegal abortions that resulted in the death of the mother. She stated that HB 37 would promote more and more illegal abortions, and more deaths and serious injuries caused by illegal abortions. MS. JOHNSTONE pointed out the fact that there were two people involved in pregnancy; a mother and a father. She advised members that the proposed legislation did not address, or include, any language relating to the father of the unborn child. MS. JOHNSTONE advised members that contrary to testimony concerning teenage birth rates following passage of parental consent bills, that in the state of Minnesota, information she had, indicated that teenage births increased by approximately 38 percent, rather than decreased. Ms. Johnstone pointed out that HB 37 would not prevent pregnancies, but simply create more unwilling teenage mothers who might be doomed to a life with a very low income due to a lack of education. She noted that abortion, in the early months, was safer for a teenager than carrying her pregnancy to term. Ms. Johnstone requested that members place a do not pass recommendation on HB 37. Number 1417 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES thanked Mr. Johnstone for bringing up the fact that it takes two to tango; that there was a father involved, and appreciated that matter being brought forward. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Johnstone would send the committee the information she had relating to the state of Minnesota's experience of an increase in teen pregnancies. MS. JOHNSTONE advised members she would forward that information to the House Judiciary Committee. VIRGINIA PHILLIPS advised members she was the National Right to Life spokesperson for American Indians and Alaska Natives, noting that she was one fourth Tlingit and 72 years old. She expressed that she was in support of HB 37 because a minor did not have a true enough judgment to make a decision regarding abortion. Ms. Phillips questioned the motives of anyone who would influence a minor to have an abortion without consulting their parents. TERESA LUNDY testified via teleconference from Sitka, Alaska. She advised members she was a medical transcriptionist and represented the pro-life community in Sitka. Ms. Lundy advised members that she supported HB 37, and asked how many members on the House Judiciary Committee, or the listening public, had been personally touched by abortion. She expressed that she had journeyed through the abortion experience herself. Ms. Lundy noted that there were many emotional repercussions regarding an abortion, of which the first was the dreaded positive pregnancy test; that was followed, shortly, by the horrible reality of having to make a decision to keep the baby, or abort it. Ms. Lundy asked who could be trusted to share the secret with. She noted that cash money had to be gathered, as well as securing transportation within a very short time in order to get an abortion. MS. LUNDY advised members that abortion was a shameful thing that could not be blamed on anyone but one's self. It was a lonely journey, and during the days that follow, the woman goes through the same hormone changes that would be experienced through a miscarriage. MS. LUNDY asked if that was what individuals, who opposed HB 37, wanted for their young daughters, nieces and grand-daughters. She expressed that young women needed parental support during that intensely emotional and trying time, regardless of the decision to abort or keep the child. Ms. Lundy asked that members support passage of HB 37. Number 1676 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated with respect to the testimony regarding a 38 percent increase in pregnancies in the state of Minnesota, that it was a statistical anomaly. He stated that the number of total births and abortions decreased; however, second trimester abortions did not drop as much. Representative Kelly stated that as a percentage of the number of abortions conducted, that the number would then show a rise, which was where the 38 percent came from. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if the number of pregnancies decreased in the state of Minnesota after enacting the parental consent law. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY expressed that there were less pregnancies after the enactment of Minnesota' parental consent law. He added that Dr. Kohler addressed that issue in her testimony. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he felt it was helpful to the committee when they see what appeared to be conflicting statistics, to make sure it was clarified with some empirical evidence. Number 1817 BARBARA RAWALT testified via teleconference from Delta Junction, Alaska. She advised members she was testifying on behalf of the Republican Party, District 35, and also as a parent and grandparent. Ms. Rawalt urged passage of HB 37 to require parental consent for a minor to have an abortion. She pointed out that parents had the responsibility to guide their children, and were required to give their consent on many more mundane matters. Ms. Rawalt stated that, surely, a parent should be aware of a potentially life-threatening surgical procedure, and urged passage of HB 37. JOE CLAIRE MCBRIDE testified via teleconference from Delta Junction, Alaska. Ms. McBride advised members she was in support of HB 37, as a parent, grandparent and just recently a great- grandparent. She pointed out that she had always been involved in the decisions of her children and urged passage of HB 37. ROBERT HILLIKER testified via teleconference from Delta Junction, Alaska. He advised members that, in his opinion, he did not think the government; federal, state or local, had any businesses meddling in the affairs of the family. Mr. Hilliker advised members that situations should be resolved by parents, who should have complete authority over their minor children. He expressed that a minor should not be forced to have an abortion against her will, even though he was against abortions of any kind. MR. HILLIKER advised members that because he lived out in the Bush, he might not be able to return to speak on HB 65, and pointed out that he opposed that bill, as well. He stated that if the mother's life was in danger, it would certainly be known before the baby was 99 percent born. Mr. Hilliker advised members that partial birth was evil, and against all factors of morality, and in his opinion, murder against the laws of nature of the all mighty God. He stated that anyone with a healthy conscience, should never do, or allow such a thing to be done. Number 1998 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if what Mr. Hilliker was saying was that parents should have total control over their children, unless they would require the child to have an abortion. MR. HILLIKER stated that was correct. TERESA KILLION testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, Alaska. She advised members she was testifying as a parent in support of HB 37. She stated that the bill was common sense legislation, and reaffirmed that parents should be involved in decisions that involve their children, adding that abortion was no light matter. Ms. Killion asked that members pass HB 37, noting that it might not be politically correct, or a popular subject, but it was a good bill and felt that, she, as a parent, needed the legislation. RUTH EWIG testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, Alaska, in support of HB 37. She noted that she had talked to friends about the issue and the question had been posed to her, quote: "You mean teens get an abortion without parental knowledge or consent?" "When was it legalized?" Ms. Ewig pointed out that even though the law was clear on a parent's legal guardianship of a minor, that somehow the act of abortion was taking place without the knowledge of the parent. Ms. Ewig expressed that teens were being advised to get abortions through the school system; undermining parents, and directed to abortion clinics, without even the knowledge of the parent. MS. EWIG referenced an article in the World Magazine in August 1996 which reported that 58 sixth graders in Pennsylvania were herded into a nurses room and told to undress for a vaginal exam. She advised members that had been done without parental knowledge, and since then, parents had gotten together to ensure that would not happen to the next year's sixth graders. MS. EWIG pointed out that during a hearing held on HB 37 by the House State Affairs Committee, she listened to a person from Juneau who claimed to be a victim of abusive parents when she was a teenager, and that she would not have wanted to approach them for the purpose of consent to abort her baby. Ms. Ewig disagreed that legislation should be based on a few exceptions, such as that. MS. EWIG felt the object of HB 37 was to surround the teenager with help in the decision making process. TAPE 97-31, SIDE A Number 000 SCOTT CALDER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, Alaska. He advised members that he agreed with all the reasons that had been given in support of HB 37. Mr. Calder expressed that he disagreed with most of the reasons provided in opposition to HB 37. Mr. Calder stated that he would not want to live in a world where women were forced to bear children; however, he felt the information that had presented on the proposed legislation was misleading. MR. CALDER stated that the insinuation that parents possessing medical information may be a reason for them to be involved, completely avoided the issue of the parental moral values, and other family considerations, which were primary to the decision making process. MR. CALDER pointed out that the court authorization was constructed for potentially nothing except people allowing paperwork to pass by without acting on it. He pointed out that he did agree with the reasons put forth in support of HB 37; however, did not believe the bill was accomplishing all of what the proponents were asking that it accomplish. Mr. Calder encouraged the committee, and others, to do more work on the proposed legislation, as he felt it was a significant matter that needed to be addressed. He pointed out that the proposed legislation did nothing to curtail the rampant abuse of parental rights by the government of the state of Alaska, as reflected in Section 18.16.030 (b)(4), which allowed for the an untested allegation of abuse to be a reason for the minor to get an abortion. Mr. Calder believed the bill needed to be tightened up, and reiterated that he agreed with the reasons presented in support of the bill, but did not feel it was strong enough. BILLY TOIEN testified via teleconference from Anchorage, Alaska. He advised members he was a member of the Libertarian Party, and held the position of Nominations on the Executive Committee. He had also been a past, and future, candidate for the state House of Representatives. Number 288 MR. TOIEN stated that the libertarian's position on what goes on inside a person's body was that person's business; not a matter for government or other persons. He expressed that more laws did not strengthen the family. Mr. Toien advised members that libertarians believed in self-ownership; you own yourself, you own your body and the fruits of your labor. Mr. Toien stated that when others are given the power to dictate a person's most personal decisions, regarding one's own body, it devalued individual human life to the status of chatted property. MR. TOIEN advised members that the libertarian position opposed HB 37, and supported the individual's choice; not the choice of others. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Toien if he felt a young teenager, getting pregnant, was a show of responsibility. MR. TOIEN expressed that the teen was responsible for her own actions. He stated that it was not something that should be farmed out to government, the police or the schools, adding that it could not even be farmed out to other family members. Mr. Toien advised members if the teen had a healthy relationship with her family, she would seek guidance and counseling from them. HUGH FLEISCHER testified via teleconference from Anchorage, Alaska. He advised members he opposed HB 37. Mr. Fleischer felt the committee should closely consider the testimony given by the counselor and teacher from Kenai, Alaska. He pointed out that the proposed legislation was contradicting itself. Under the first section it referenced "immature minors". Mr. Fleischer asked how mature a child parent would be. He felt it would be in the best interest of the state of Alaska to vote against HB 37, adding that it was a disservice to the state. THEDA PITTMAN testified via teleconference from Anchorage, Alaska. She pointed out that over the past two hours she had heard Ms. Kohler speak several times, and it was her understanding that Ms. Kohler was an attorney for a pro-life organization, not a doctor. Ms. Pittman pointed out that Ms. Kohler cited several cases; however, only provided the information about the cases that support her view point. MS. PITTMAN advised members that under the California case, presently, the parental consent with judicial bypass case was upheld; however, was subject to re-review by the California Supreme Court. She pointed out that the trial court, in that case, proved that legislation, such as HB 37, did not encourage parent-child communication, and would not accomplish its stated purpose. MS. PITTMAN stated that the Florida case, even though overturned, still had a lot of information worth reading. She advised members there was also a huge amount of information on the Minnesota case. Ms. Pittman stated, with respect to the 38 percent figure, that the increase in second trimester abortions meant that those young women had to wait and had delays in their abortions. She pointed out that it was preferable, and safer, to have an abortion at the early stages of pregnancy, and 38 percent was an important number, and should not be dismissed as only meaning the abortions involved second trimester abortions. MS. PITTMAN expressed that what the Minnesota law came down to, was that 3500 young women had to go to court for no good reason. She pointed out that, similarly, in another state over a period of years, that with 14,000 cases, not one of them resulted in a woman being turned down, and consequently, not having an abortion. MS. PITTMAN stated that the ultimate goal of the proposed legislation was the elimination of abortion in the state. She suggested that if members questioned witnesses carefully, they would find out that the ultimate goal was to ban the sale of condoms, IUD's; methods of contraception that would prevent unplanned pregnancies, which were the items that would really prevent abortions. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if Representative Kelly had all the information relating to the Minnesota case. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members he would provide that information. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ was curious to know if anything else was going on in Minnesota at the same time. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY could not answer that; however, pointed out that it was a valid question, that one would have to look at statistics within the entire environment. Number 884 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if it was Representative Kelly's intent that HB 37 would be the first step to pursue the subject of pregnancy to the point of the removal of birth control devices, as was suggested by one person who testified. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY felt that was an absurd assertion. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE's response was if HB 37 was the "camel's nose under the tent", he would like to know. CHAIRMAN GREEN invited Amy Skilbred to testify in Juneau. Number 933 AMY SKILBRED, representing the Alaska Civil Liberties Union, advised members when explicit privacy protection, Article 1, Section 22, was added to the Alaska Constitution, no one dropped a footnote that said this would apply to some people, but not to others. Ms. Skilbred expressed that every Alaskan was protected by the constitutional privacy provision, and young people also had the right to privacy, including young women. She pointed out that a person's right to privacy could only be denied when the government showed a compelling state interest would be served by denying individuals' privacy rights due everyone. MS. SKILBRED noted that HB 37 applied to the approval for abortion, but not to other medical services which teenagers could access on their own. She pointed out that there was no particular state interest that set abortion apart from those other private medical circumstances. Ms. Skilbred advised members that the young woman the proposed legislation sought to rein in, currently, could have a child, could receive various kinds of medical treatment, including birth control pills, and could relinquish a child for adoption; all without parental consent. MS. SKILBRED stated that an attempt to reduce the number of abortions taking place by interfering with young women who seek an abortion, did not constitute a state interest, much less a compelling one. She advised members that the interference was simply in the interest of one political view point. MS. SKILBRED pointed out that abortion was protected throughout the country under the federal constitution. She expressed that it was quite a stretch to think that a state like Alaska, one of the few that had explicit State Constitutional provisions guaranteeing privacy rights, could assert a state interest to inhibit young women from doing something, when the very act had been determined by the Supreme Court to be protected under federal law. MS. SKILBRED stated that HB 37 was pattern legislation, one of many such bills being introduced by anti-abortion movements all over the country. She advised members it was one of the many tactics being used to erode abortion rights. MS. SKILBRED advised members that HB 37 was no match for the privacy guaranteed to young women in the Alaska Constitution, and deserved no further hearings in the state. On behalf of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union, Ms. Skilbred requested a do not pass recommendation on HB 37. Number 1131 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Ms. Skilbred to elaborate on the medical procedures teenagers were able to receive without parental consent. MS. SKILBRED advised members that the use of pregnancy prevention methods, such as pills and other sorts of contraceptives, did not require parental consent to obtain. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE felt those types of things would be separate from surgical procedures. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Skilbred if she was aware of whether the issue of parental consent for abortion was discussed by the legislature, or found in the pro and con statements that supported the right to privacy ballot. MS. SKILBRED could not respond to that question; however, said she could get the information and provide members. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she strongly believed in parental rights, no matter what it involved, and she believed in the minority of a person until they reach the age of 18. She asked Ms. Skilbred at what age she felt privacy was the overwhelming determinant for a person to engage in intercourse, that would cause pregnancy; when would the privacy issue kick in, and once that happened, at what age was it a privacy issue. Representative James asked what other privacy issues children faced, such as the use of drugs. MS. SKILBRED provided her personal opinion on the questions posed by Representative James. She explained that she was a parent of two children, and felt she was a good parent. It was her hope that as her children grew older and enter their teenage years, that if her daughter became pregnant, or her son caused someone to become pregnant, that they would come to her, or their father, and talk about the situation. Ms. Skilbred expressed that some children do not always go to their parents with certain problems. MS. SKILBRED noted that there had been testimony reflecting that people wanted the government to step in and enforce parental rights. She did not see the government as stepping in and enforcing her parental rights with her children; that it was incumbent upon her and her husband to build a family in which their parental rights were adhered to by their children. Ms. Skilbred stated that there was no age, or cut-off line, when it came to the issue of when one should have the right to privacy. Number 1450 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referenced Title 25, Section 20.025, and stated that, basically, aside from the issue of termination of pregnancy, it endowed a minor with the full range of the ability to give consent on medical issues. He pointed out that the caveat was that once the minor signed up for the medical treatment, the provider would not be able to go after the parents for payment. Representative Berkowitz felt that might weigh in member's decisions at a later point. HONDA HEAD, retired resident of Juneau, advised members that prior to moving to Alaska she was a licensed, certified, social worker in the state of Michigan. She noted that back in those days, she was sorry to say, an active proponent of abortion who fought hard and long to get abortion legalized, never believing it would have gone as far as it had. MS. HEAD advised members she was in support of HB 37. She expressed that she had talked with many young ladies in Juneau who had gone through an abortion without their parents knowing. Ms. Head suggested that members contact the Department of Education if they were interested in knowing how a minor accomplished that. She pointed out that some had experienced medical problems after the procedure, and the parents of one of the girls only found out about the abortion when they received a bill from the clinic. Ms. Head pointed out that the girl was shipped out of state for the abortion, and back before she was due home from school that night. Number 1684 NIKKI SULLIVAN testified on behalf of herself, but advised members that in the past she had been a volunteer for crisis pregnancy, and worked with post abortion counseling and education, with women who had had abortions. She expressed that it was a very emotional position working with women who had gone through the trauma of abortion. Ms. Sullivan advised members that she had gone through training, both in Juneau and Denver, Colorado. MS. SULLIVAN expressed that she was in support of HB 37; however, stated that working with women who had had abortions, and were suffering from post abortion trauma, that she would like to see language included that would require informing young women what abortion was. She expressed that through working with post abortion women, the statement she had heard over and over again was; "I didn't know. They told me it was tissue." MS. SULLIVAN pointed out that she had been asked a number of times to talk with youth, both in churches and schools. She explained that she would take a fetal model to her presentations, and the young people were amazed at what a fetus actually looked like inside the womb. Ms. Sullivan stressed the importance of informing young women what was actually going on, and she felt the parent was the best person to talk to the teens about pregnancy, and the abortion process. Ms. Sullivan stated that the young women who choose the judicial bypass route needed to be informed, at that stage, as to what they were actually doing. She noted, that for the most part, the people a teen approaches with the situation, did not explain the repercussions of having an abortion. MS. SULLIVAN referred to testimony relating to a court room being intimidating, and suggested that person go to an abortion clinic with a young women. She explained that she was pro-choice in her late teens and early 20s, and escorted many women to abortion clinics; she herself was a patient in an abortion clinic. Ms. Sullivan stated that if one thought going before a judge was intimidating, they should go into an abortion clinic, and go through the procedure of an abortion, if they wanted to talk about intimidation. Number 1823 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded to a statement made by Representative Berkowitz regarding a minor having full range of medical consent. He pointed out that the statute included a number of provisos, as to whether the parent needs to be contacted, and other types of things. Representative Kelly felt it was a bit of a mischaracterization to say a minor had full range medical consent. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that he did indicate there were qualifiers included in the statute; however, minors did have the ability to make those kinds of decisions. PAT DENNY advised members she had been a social worker for 40 years in maternity service, family therapy, adoption cases, and child protection and spoke in favor of HB 37. She expressed that many times, while working with girls who were pregnant, the teen was very reluctant to tell their parents. Ms. Denny stated that through her experience, in states where parental consent was required, there were very few situations where approaching the parents did not strengthen family relationships. MS. DENNY recognized there were dysfunctional families, but because teenage pregnancy was such an epidemic, all sorts of families were involved, and many would help the young teen with the situation she had to face. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ felt pregnancy was being discussed as a spontaneous event, and pointed out that there was a precursor that had to occur first. He stated that it seemed to him that the emphasis ought to be on deterring unwanted pregnancies. MS. DENNY agreed with Representative Berkowitz statement. Number 2013 SID HEIDERSDORF testified as a concerned citizen, and advised members he was in support of HB 37. He noted that there had been many heart-wrenching stories on both sides of the issue; however, asked that members pass the proposed legislation because he felt it was simply good public policy. Mr. Heidersdorf expressed that there was a misconception among many people who assumed that parents had the right to consult with their children when they have an abortion. He pointed out that the judicial bypass provision addressed cases where abusive and dysfunctional families prohibited a teen from approaching her parents. MR. HEIDERSDORF noted that there had been testimony about pregnant girls who were willing to approach their parents with the situation, and those who would not. He contended there was a third group of teens in the middle; on the margins, who under the influence of a law, would go to their parents. Mr. Heidersdorf added that HB 37 was legislation that supported the family, and demonstrated that the state was concerned about the structure and integrity of the family. He expressed that those girls who realized going to their parents was required by law, would be the group of girls that HB 37 would provide the most help for. JOHN MONAGLE, representing Alaskans for Life, advised members they were in support of HB 37. He stated with respect to parents rights, that he felt they should be addressing parents responsibilities, and it would be hard for a parent to be responsible if they did not know the facts. Number 2203 DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services, felt that all would agree that the state would like to see the numbers of abortions reduced. He advised members that there were ways to reduce abortions through early intervention, better education, and more opportunities for family planning and family life interventions. Dr. Nakamura felt another area everyone agreed with was that parents should be involved in the affairs of their children, especially in terms of accessing medical care. DR. NAKAMURA pointed out that in most cases, a law was not necessary to bring about parental involvement with their children. He stated that in most of the studies he was aware of, determined that approximately 60 percent of unmarried, minor pregnant women would seek the counsel of their parents. Dr. Nakamura stated that of those 40 percent that would not approach their parents, approximately 20 percent would seek counsel from another responsible adult; whether it be a teacher, a member of the clergy or some other member of the family. He stated that the unfortunate fact, regarding the 40 percent who would not seek parental involvement, was that approximately one third of those teens were in abusive family situations. Dr. Nakamura pointed out that there were about 4 million to 5 million cases of domestic violence known to the court systems annually, and at least half as many of those families had children who had been abused in those homes. DR. NAKAMURA expressed that the problem with legislation, such as HB 37, was that it forced children of abusive families back into an environment which was not only coercive, but a situation the child was trying to avoid in the first place. He stated that overall, you could not bring those children into a dysfunctional home and hope communications would improve, and bring about a greater parental support. Dr. Nakamura advised members that violence was most often brought on in a dysfunctional family when it was found out that a family member had gotten pregnant. DR. NAKAMURA pointed out that the 38.4 percent figure had been termed to represent abortions. He expressed that what it really represented was the number of increased teen deliveries; birth to teenagers increased by 38.4 percent in Minnesota. Dr. Nakamura advised members that statistic could be found in the Ethics and Judicial Rights Counsel for the American Medical Association. He also pointed out that the number of abortions did decrease, in the three states that were studied, where a parental consent law had been implemented. However, what could be found was that there were also a concomitant number of abortions done in the adjacent states. Dr. Nakamura advised members they would also find that the number of second trimester abortions increased, relative to the number of total abortions in those states. Dr. Nakamura advised members that all the figures he had had access to indicated that the parental consent laws had not helped. DR. NAKAMURA advised members that a problem he saw with the provision of judicial bypass, was access to the judicial system in rural areas. He also expressed that he could not envision a situation where a youngster, in a community without even pay phones, would be able to call up the judicial system and get the kind of permission required in order to get an abortion. Number 2410 CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, with respect to the 40 percent reference, that about one third of those were from abusive families who would not want to approach their families on the subject of abortion. He felt that possibly one half of the one third would seek a judicial bypass, which would leave approximately five to seven percent who would be caught up in the dilemma of having to deal with their situation in some other manner. Chairman Green stated that if HB 37 were to pass, that that represented a fairly low percentage and asked Dr. Nakamura to respond to that. DR. NAKAMURA pointed out that everyone was speculating; however, agreed with the statement made by Mr. Heidersdorf, that there was a group that could benefit from parental involvement, but those types of types of cases were fairly small. TAPE 97-31, SIDE B Number 000 CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, with respect to the increased number of abortions taking place in adjacent states to those who had implemented parental consent laws, if Dr. Nakamura felt that would present a problem in the state of Alaska where, in fact, there are no states that boarder it, like Minnesota and the other lower 48 states. DR. NAKAMURA could not respond to that question, although pointed out that access to an abortion in the state of Alaska was quite difficult. He pointed out that teens, currently, had to go a significant distance to access the procedure, although felt it was unlikely the teen would travel to another state in order to get an abortion. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Dr. Nakamura what young girls did and where they would go for help, if they had experienced abuse in the home. DR. NAKAMURA expressed that they would usually confront someone they felt comfortable talking to, which could include another child, an older child, as well as a responsible adult, such as a teacher. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES felt if that was the case, the person that the teen approached could lead her to the judicial bypass procedure if she was seeking an abortion. DR. NAKAMURA felt that was a very conceivable possibility. He added that there was the concern of maintaining confidentiality, in a small community, even when there was a responsible adult involved. Dr. Nakamura pointed out that he had heard the comment, more than once, that "the power of the parent to control their child is a right that should be enforced", and his concern was that the child was not being provided the right to privacy. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked at what age a child should be entitled to the right to privacy. DR. NAKAMURA could not answer that, pointing out that it would depend on the issue. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if 10 year old should be allowed the right to privacy. DR. NAKAMURA stated that if a 10 year old approach him, as a physician with a problem, and he counseled and worked with the child, that if he was really concerned, the first thing he would do was ask the child to involve the parent or the family. However, if there was a major barrier because of family abuse, and he knew the child could go out and harm himself because he would not subject himself to an abusive situation, that in a case like that, he would listen to the child and attempt to maintain the child's privacy. Dr. Nakamura further stated that, yes, a 10 year old, in certain situations, did have the right to privacy. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed that the issue at hand was very important to her, and agreed that the state could not legislate parental behavior; however, pointed out that they could interfere with it by putting laws on the books that allow people to go around it, which was her biggest concern. She asked Dr. Nakamura if a child confided in him, because they could not talk to their parents about a serious issue, if he would consider that an abusive family relationship, or involved a situation that needed to be reported to the Department of Health and Social Services, as to whether or not the child should be remaining at home. DR. NAKAMURA felt he would need a lot more information than he presently had in order to make that kind of judgment. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES provided a hypothetical situation of a 14 year old girl who was pregnant and absolutely insisted she could not tell her parents because her father would beat her, et cetera. She asked Dr. Nakamura if he would be obligated to report the conversation to DHSS, for investigative purposes. DR. NAKAMURA responded that he would be required by law to report a situation, as was presented by Representative James. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if an abortion clinic would be responsible to report such a situation to the DHSS. DR. NAKAMURA responded that the clinic would have to report those types of cases to DHSS, as well. Number 268 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked that Dr. Nakamura reiterate the number, or percentage, of teens who would not approach their families with an unwanted pregnancy because of abuse in the family. DR. NAKAMURA advised members that, roughly, 60 percent of unmarried, pregnant teenagers would seek parental consent. Of the remaining 40 percent, one third were already living in, or exposed to abusive family situations. He did not believe HB 37 would result in an increase of parental involvement, in any way. Number 380 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY felt that the discussion relating to what would occur in rural communities was a bit of a red herring. He pointed out that teens who did not have access to the judicial system, could not get abortions in the rural communities either. Representative Kelly stated that in order for those teenagers to get an abortion, there would, most likely, be some kind of a breach of privacy, because the those smaller communities, the people had grown up within a 100 yards of each other, all their lives. He noted that if minor had to go off to Anchorage, someone would realize the teen was missing, and it would be a difficult task for a young person to achieve, without her absence being discovered. TOM GORDY, representing the Juneau Christian Coalition, advised members he had been a youth minister for the past eight years. He did not feel the legislation was taking away the rights of children because those rights were limited anyway. Mr. Gordy stated that they were talking about parental rights, which was a right that had been whittled away over a given period of time. He advised members that he saw the family life deteriorating, across the country, which he felt was a result of legislation that had weakened the family, and given children the ability to accuse their parents of certain acts, when, in fact, some accusations were totally false. MR. GORDY informed members he was taking a group of kids to a conference in California this summer, and that he would be required to have a medical treatment permission form, that provided parental consent, if medical treatment was necessary for a child. Mr. Gordy pointed out that abortion was a medical procedure, and legislation that he fully supported. Mr. Gordy expressed that if parents were responsible when their child breaks the law, they should be responsible for everything a child is involved in. He also expressed his belief that in order for an abortion to be preformed, both parties, child and parent, should agree. Number 742 ANGELA SALERNO, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers, stated that as parental consent was being discussed, that what was really being debated was the issue of abortion. MS. SALERNO advised members that information, from well respected medical associations, reflected that teenage girls were more likely to die from child birth than from a first trimester legal abortion. The longer a teen, or woman waits, the more dangerous abortions become. She stated that what could result, under HB 37, was increased risks to the young woman. Ms. Salerno advised members that the American Medical Association made the following statement: "Because the need for privacy may be compelling, minors may be driven to desperate measures to maintain the confidentiality of their pregnancies. They may run away from home, obtain back alley abortions, or resort to self induced abortion. The desire to maintain secrecy has been one of the leading reasons for illegal abortion deaths since 1973." MS. SALERNO expressed that there had been overwhelming testimony that HB 37 was about outlawing abortion. She advised members that they were targeting the state's most vulnerable citizens in the debate, which she felt was something that was not a compelling interest to the state. Number 881 CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that with the testimony presented by Ms. Salerno, that it would appear that a teen who could have an abortion would also have the right to drink in a bar, drive an automobile, enlist in the service and defend the country. He asked if Ms. Salerno agreed with that scenario. MS. SALERNO advised members she did not think those situations were equal to abortion, in any fashion. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that Ms. Salerno expressed that the intent of HB 37 was about abortion; not parental rights. He stated that if over 50 percent of adults favored abortion, he would assume, given the normal circumstance, they would favor abortion for the child if they thought it was appropriate in a particular instance. MS. SALERNO agreed with that statement. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked then, why she termed the bill as being about abortion. MS. SALERNO explained that she said the proposed legislation was about abortion because she felt it was part of a larger strategy to restrict access to abortion. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Salerno, if she had a 14 year old daughter with a totally unwanted pregnancy, would she allow the child to undergo an abortion. MS. SALERNO advised members she would, and elaborated by stating that a parenting relationship did not begin when a child was 14 years old and found herself pregnant. She pointed out that good parental relationships begin from day one, and would hope, in the circumstance provided by Representative Porter, that she would have been a good enough parent to earn the respect of her child, and to have developed a good relationship with her child. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER felt there was a natural reluctance, on the part of kids, to bring bad news to the parents, especially for those who had a good relationship with their parents. He asked Ms. Salerno if she would not want to run the risk that that could happen, very easily, because someone else was counseling her child and circumvented her in counseling her child. MS. SALERNO's response was "of course". She expressed that she would definitely want to participate in the decision; however, would hope that her family was one that had the capacity to deal with the situation. Ms. Salerno pointed out that she was not worried about "her" family, or "Representative Porter's" family, per se, but concerned about the families where the proposed legislation would present a devastating blow, so much so that the child could be in danger. She felt that would happen, and that there would be families who could simply not handle the situation. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that if more people felt as Ms. Salerno explained, that rather than the bill being a step towards the "nose under the tent", and the actual result being that of pro- life, he would then join in her view. However, he stressed that that was not what HB 37 was about; it was about parental rights. He added that he was pro-choice, supported the bill, and that it was not addressing the specific issue of abortion. MS. SALERNO respectfully disagreed with Representative Porter. Number 1208 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the bill did have an abortion connotation because the bill was entitled "Parental Rights on Abortion", but she took offense at the implication that the bill dealt with the right to have an abortion, because it did not. It was a parents' rights issue. She expressed that there were a lot of areas in the law, where the law and government had interfered with the rights of parents. Representative James expressed, with respect to the issue of a child's right to privacy, that she knew what her children were doing all the time, and it was the parents responsibility to know what their children were up to. She asked what Ms. Salerno's response to that would be. MS. SALERNO agreed, and stated that she felt the key term was "responsibility", and reiterated that she was not a parent. She did not believe that parents get rights immediately after they bear a child. Those rights were developed, and earned, throughout the child's life. Number 1376 CHAIRMAN GREEN interjected because there was one additional person who was waiting to testify from Kenai, Alaska. Number 1376 BOB BIRD testified via teleconference from Kenai, Alaska. He advised members he was the former President of the Alaska Right to Life, and a teacher for the past 23 years. Mr. Bird pointed out that over the past 10 years, numerous numbers of parents had placed phone calls to Alaska Right to Life wondering how their child could get an abortion without them knowing about it. He expressed that many of those parents were pro-choice; however, did not realize the law would permit their minor child to have an abortion. MR. BIRD stated that he felt people possibly now realized that the decision in Roe v. Wade actually meant abortion on demand. He advised members that there were no rights that were absolute; all rights had limits. Mr. Bird stated that if a person had the right to abortion, that there should be limits; one being the limit of the right for a minor child to get an abortion without parental knowledge or consent. Mr. Bird pointed out that Dr. Nakamura testified that he would decide what a child's right to privacy was. Mr. Bird declared that doctors were not in the business of making the rules; that was what the legislature was elected to do. MR. BIRD referenced testimony regarding post abortion syndrome, pointing out that it did exist, and was initially identified by the psychology profession, not a legislature or the pro-life movement. He emphasized that that there were psychological and psychiatric associations who had identified post abortion syndrome as a mental disorder that could be professionally treated. Number 1649 KIMBERLY HOOVER, member of the Juneau Coalition for Pro-Choice, spoke in opposition to HB 37, although indicated she would speak to her own personal experience. She felt, that in an ideal world, kids would talk to their parents when having to make a decision regarding and unwanted pregnancy. Ms. Hoover stated that through working at the AWARE Shelter, she realized how many families were in chaos, and the kinds of families where it would not be safe for a daughter to approach her parents in order to get consent for an abortion. MS. HOOVER stated that the proposed legislation was most unfair to the girls who come from disadvantaged homes. She stated that the teen was the one who would have to live the decision for the rest of her life, and if she felt that by telling her parents she could be abused, or influence her decision, forcing her to have the child, or an abortion, that it would not be fair. The pregnant teen was the one who would have to live the decision for the rest of her life. MS. HOOVER advised members that she found herself pregnant at age 20, and deciding what to do was the most horrible decision she had to make in her life. She stated that she had the best parents in the world, but did not want to tell them because she did not want anyone to influence her decision because she was the one that would have to live with it. MS. HOOVER stated that she was also concerned that the judicial bypass provision would not work very well because she remembered how emotional she was at the time, and was afraid that a teenage girl would have a very difficult time going to a judge to ask for permission to have an abortion. CHAIRMAN GREEN referenced previous testimony relating to the trauma of having an abortion, and asked Ms. Hoover if she would agree with those statements. MS. HOOVER advised members she did not find that in her experience. She explained that she went to the health clinic, on campus, and did not believe the abortion procedure was as traumatic as being required to go through the legal system. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the trauma she was speaking to was because she would be speaking to an attorney or a judge. MS. HOOVER advised members that it would be very scary to go before a judge with a personal story. She expressed that it would be much easier to go to some type of clinic, or private medical clinic, rather than a judge. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Hoover if she would aid, and support a teen who found herself in the situation of being pregnant and had parents who might possibly cause harm if the teen went to them. MS. HOOVER advised members that she would definitely help a teenager, that came to her, go through the legal process if HB 37 was the enacted into law; however, emphasized that not all teens had an adult they could trust enough to go to with that particular situation. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Hoover if she felt that anyone in the system, whether an AWARE shelter or some type of teen counselors, would assist a teen because it was the law. MS. HOOVER stated that she would hope so, but felt there would still be some girls who would fall through the cracks who might end up having a baby they were not able to take care for, or put off the decision so long that it would not be safe to get an abortion. Number 2023 CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed that he was having some difficulty understanding how a young women would allow herself to have an abortion, rather than have the baby and give it up for adoption. MS. HOOVER advised members that was her hardest decision. She stated that if someone had approached her and said they wanted the baby, that she would want to give the baby to them. But after she thought about it, long and hard, and decided it would be harder for her to carry the baby, give birth, and then give the baby up, than it was to end her pregnancy. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Ms. Hoover if she thought her decision to end the pregnancy was easier because she did not consider what was growing inside her as being a baby, and that if born, it would be a baby. MS. HOOVER responded that she did feel like she knew it was life, or potential life, and that was why the decision was so incredibly hard to make. She still felt it was the right decision for her. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that Ms. Hoover indicated how tormenting it was to arrive at the decision she did at age 20, and his concern was if she would have been capable of making the decision at age 15 without the solace of somebody else helping her. MS. HOOVER advised members that she would definitely want someone to help her through the situation, but someone who was nonjudgmental, who would ultimately let her make the final decision, because she would be the one that had to live with it. She added that any girl who finds herself pregnant in high school needed someone to talk to about it. CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that public testimony was now closed on HB 37.