HB 234 - ABORTIONS UNDER GENERAL RELIEF PROGRAM Number 1064 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item on the agenda was HB 234, "An Act relating to assistance for abortions under the general relief program; and relating to financial responsibility for the costs of abortions." REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, sponsor of HB 234, asked for another opportunity when there was more time to hear the bill. CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that a couple of people needed to testify. He asked whether Representative Martin wished to make a statement prior to that. REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said this is a new approach concerning state funding for an abortion. Federal and state laws have been formulated to make the male responsible for the child that is born; earnings can be attached, for example. In the same way, this legislation would make the male responsible for the abortion. He referred to two proposed amendments and said he believes those would add to the bill, if the committee wished to prepare a committee substitute. CHAIRMAN GREEN advised that the committee would meet again later that day. Number 1172 THEDA PITTMAN, Interim Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She said she had submitted a letter on behalf of the ACLU in opposition to the bill; she would make a couple of additional comments. MS. PITTMAN noted that the sponsor statement pools abortions and elective procedures. She pointed out that the medical community uses the word "elective" for procedures that can be scheduled, as opposed to emergency procedures. While an abortion may be considered elective as far as the doctor is concerned because it can be scheduled, it is not elective for the woman in many instances. She commented that discussions about the difference between preserving one's health and one's life were rather disappointing. MS. PITTMAN reported that in 1994, the ACLU successfully brought suit against the Hickel Administration for a regulation that would have prevented general relief medical funding for abortions; the state is currently operating under a settlement agreement reached as a result of that suit. She expressed disappointment in an amendment before the committee, which only mentions rape and incest, not taking into account the many other reasons why women seek abortions, such as the woman's health, failed birth control or other reasons. MS. PITTMAN stated that some feel that promoting childbirth while denying abortions is pro-family. But frankly, it is not their families who will be affected, and it should not be their decision. It is a disservice to Alaskan women who are poor to tell them the state will not allow them to decide what kind of medical procedures they need. Number 1301 PAULINE UTTER, Chair, Abortion Rights Project, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. She said all women should have the right to choose. However, HB 234 will place an undue burden on poor women. Abortion has always been available to the rich, even when it was illegal. One of the functions of government should be to keep abortion safe and legal for all women. A yes vote on HB 234 will be considered an anti-choice vote. She encouraged the committee to help keep abortion safe and legal by voting no. CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that HB 234 would be heard again that afternoon.