HB 37 - PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was 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." Number 0033 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON wondered if there was a motion on the floor to table the bill from the last meeting on February 13, 1997. CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES explained that she never took the motion. Number 0063 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ withdrew his motion in order to clear up any ambiguity. CHAIR JAMES called for debate amongst the committee members. Number 0101 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented what impressed him the most during the testimony was the wide variety of organizations that opposed the bill, such as, church groups and national organizations. And, that the Alaskan health care professionals-unanimously-expressed reservations about the parental consent and judicial by-pass approach. The judicial by-pass provision made this an urban bill, he said. It would be easier and less expensive for a young teenage mother that lived in a city than for a young teenage mother living in a rural community. In addition, he was concerned about the uneven application of the safety valve-the judicial by-pass-in the same court house, for example. He was also concerned about the young teenage mother and her dealings with an attorney. "That's a threshold that a lot of people aren't going to be able to get over," he declared. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that HB 37 was trying to legislate spirituality, chastity and talk. "You just can't do that. You just can't pass a law that says talk, communicate. It just doesn't work," that way for dysfunctional families. Legislation did not work for the belief in God, chastity or drinking, he cited. In that regard, the bill made more of a political statement than a policy statement. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated he was embarrassed for the House State Affairs Standing Committee members because the bill was being passed from the committee without any committee curiosity. He cited the testimony of Kristen Bomengen, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, that indicated there were constitutional problems with the judicial by-pass approach. Therefore, by moving the bill out of the committee at this point in time was, in essence, substituting the judgement of the committee members with the judgement of Ms. Bomengen. House Bill 37 was going to create a playground for attorneys for the next several years. However, if the committee members were to explore this issue further, it could save time and money in the long run. The issue of constitutionality was the very fundamental question that should be answered. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that he personally believed HB 37 told a portion of the family what it had to do. It did not remove the government from the family. It was not a conservative approach; an approach that allowed for the decision to be made within the family. "It was telling one part of the family exactly what they have to do and how they have to do it." It also bothered him that there was an assumption if there was something wrong with the family it was the fault of the children. "Dysfunctional families, in most cases, aren't the kids fault. It's the parents fault." And, here was a piece of legislation that said the young woman had to deal with the individuals that made a family dysfunctional. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that applying a standard rule that all families were the same, was offensive. "It just doesn't work. All families aren't the same." He believed that all families could not handle candor without violence. Therefore, this bill put a portion of the Alaskan population at a greater risk which was what the prior testimony from the professionals indicated as well. "Put aside whatever rigid, philosophical point of views we may have, and just ask everybody before they vote to put those things aside and think of what the consequences may be." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON lastly stated he appreciated the decision that Chair James made on Thursday, February 13, 1997, to hear HB 37 again today. It allowed him to put together his thoughts. Number 0729 CHAIR JAMES replied, "I understand that everything you said comes from the bottom of your heart with pure sincerity." There were two sides to every story, however. This was not an abortion issue, it was a parental rights issue. She came to this position from her personal experience as a foster parent and because she was a child at one time herself. She knew how it felt when a parent told a child what he or she could or could not do. CHAIR JAMES further stated this was not a partisan issue either. Until 1975, she was an active participant in the democratic party. And, much of her belief came from that era of her life. When she came to Alaska, however, she moved to the republican party where she found more comfort and support of her philosophies surrounding the change in the attitude towards families. She was concerned that the families had been ripped away of their authority to take care of their children. CHAIR JAMES further stated this involved the issues of attitude, fairness, respect and trust. She explained to her foster children that they always started with a clean slate in her house. "In this house we start with trust. We will trust you and expect you to trust us until we find out that we can't." That was a hard concept for them to understand. She also learned that her relationship with her foster children was at best an outside one. And, her biggest responsibility was to build the bridges and heal the wounds within their own families. She could not give to them what their biological family members could give to them. "The biological contributions from a mother and a father was immense. We can't ignore it." She also believed that there were cases when a biological child and his or her parents could not live together. CHAIR JAMES further stated she agreed with Representative Elton that communication could not be legislated. She also believed that the government should not legislate interference either; which was what the government had been doing these past years. A child had three choices as a minor when there was a problem: to go to his or her parents, to go to the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS), or to go to the courts. The government could not replace the parenting or destroy the biological connections. She reiterated HB 37 was not an abortion issue, it was a parental rights issue. CHAIR JAMES further stated that this issue was just the beginning, according to the testimony of Ms. Kristen Bomengen, Department of Law, because there wasn't any protection of parental consent for other surgeries. Therefore, HB 37 was an immunity for the doctor to proceed without fear of a law suit. That was the underlying premise of the bill. She was not looking at this bill from a medical perspective, however, she was looking at this bill from a parental and familial perspective. That was the direction this country needed; to encourage families to solve their problems within themselves. She agreed there were families that were dangerous to their children. And, she did not condemn agencies that helped children in those situation. Moreover, if a child was pregnant, there was a problem before she got pregnant. The problem did not begin with the pregnancy. In conclusion, she stated she respected the comments of Representative Elton, however, there were two sides to this issue. "You have yours and I have mine." She also hoped that Representative Elton respected her position as well. Number 1405 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated this was a highly contentious issue; anything related to abortion or parental rights was highly contentious. And, one responsibility of elected leaders was to show that this type of debate could be waged civilly and without rancor. He did not believe that he would change anybody's mind here today. He explained, there was a collision between the empirical evidence and the question of faith. The empirical evidence indicated that young women would die as a consequence of "what we do." That was a tragedy and he wished he could do more to stop that. The question of faith was a belief that abortion, under any circumstances, was wrong or that parents needed more rights. He agreed with Representative Elton that this bill was another example of governmental intrusion. In the absence of government, there would not be a question of notification or of a judicial by- pass. The by-pass, he said, just added another layer of government. Moreover, HB 37 was sending a schizophrenic message to juveniles. On the one hand, "We want juveniles to pay the price for being criminals, we want them publicly exposed, we want to treat them as adults. But, when they're young women who become pregnant, we want to treat them as children." That was a difficult discrepancy to reconcile. In addition, there was testimony surrounding the question of what if the parents wanted an abortion and the young woman did not want an abortion. Could a parent compel a child to have that procedure? he wondered. And, what if the answer was, "Yes," and parental consent was required? "If we're going to teach people to be responsible citizens, which is one of the roles that government has, we have to do it by stepping back and saying this is your life and we're not going to interfere, and we're not going to intrude." He wished that the committee members would take the course of action to not intrude. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ further stated that everyone was sincere in their belief and that was what made this question a wedge issue. It pained him, however, that issues like this were used for political purposes. "They shouldn't be," he declared. He was not accusing any committee member of using it for political purposes, however. He reiterated he was saddened by the course of action today, but he felt relieved that he was able to voice his sentiments because, "I think in the course of debate we're doing everything we can to show people how to behave responsibility." Number 1643 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated life was not easy and most of the growth that he had made as an individual had been when facing a tough situation. The decision to take the life of an unborn child should not be easy. There needed to be as many considerations taken in that process as possible. A discussion with a parent or with a magistrate furthered that consideration. He shared with the committee members that he participated in providing an opportunity for further consideration by surrounding the door of an abortion clinic years ago. As a result, four young women thanked him for that later because it allowed them to further consider their actions. He felt it was his responsibility to make this process hard, although he was sympathetic to a woman that did not want to be a mother. "That's just a part of what life is like." He agreed that legislators could not legislate moral conduct. But, the law did set standards and act as a teacher. Therefore, by stating that children needed to involve their parents in their important decisions then "we're doing something important." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON further stated he agreed with Representative Elton that HB 37 was intrusive. He believed in a limited government. But, amongst the few valid rules of government, one was to protect the weak against the strong. He summarized a quotation from Hubert Humphrey, U.S. Vice President, that stated the reading of a government had to do with how well it treated the people on the fringes-the old, the disabled, the young and the defenseless. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON further stated it was clear that his convictions came from a spiritual belief and the Declaration of Independence. He declared, "We all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as provided for in the Declaration of Independence. He was unable to discover the logic that children born or unborn did not have a right to that protection. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON further stated he found nothing in the bill that indicated children were the cause of dysfunctional families. Nor, did he find anything in the bill that inferred all families were the same. And, "Not all abortion providers are the same either." There were some that were very sensitive to saving the life of the child. Nonetheless, there were many that "cranked them through every 45 minutes." It was one of the highest income professions in the country. He was delighted that the state of Alaska did not have one of these. The abortion providers in the state had a pretty good record in terms of taking care of the health of the mother. "For that I'm pleased." Furthermore, he cited between 500 to 800 children were dying in Alaska to abortions. He believed as did Representative Berkowitz that young women would choose to go to an ill-prepared and illegal abortion provider because of this bill and suffer or die because of it. "I hope that doesn't happen," however. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON further stated he was very familiar with the anti-abortion movement in the state, and every pro-life group allowed for an abortion if the life of the mother was threatened. Those were rare cases, however. He hoped that no abortion practitioner would coerce a young woman to undergo an abortion and take the life of a child against her consent. "My understanding is most of our practitioners are more ethical than that and I hope that that doesn't happen." He also hoped that this bill was not for political purposes. In addition, he wondered why the pro-life individuals believed that the four inches that a child travelled down the birth canal changed the child's status before the law. Moreover, the idea that children who were unwanted were in jeopardy also scared him and that the "wantedness" of a person affected his or her value and protection under the law. He did not believe that either Representative Berkowitz or Elton had any malice towards unborn children, however. Number 2119 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated the net effect of HB 37 would not make any difference or create any harm for the families of the committee members. He hoped that nobody inferred that from his earlier remarks. He was, however, concerned about the dysfunctional families. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that he appreciated the quote of the former U.S. Vice President and senator, Hubert Humphrey, that Representative Dyson referred to in his remarks. As a matter of fact, Hubert Humphrey was pro-choice. He further wondered if he understood the comments of Representative Dyson to indicate that the debate at this table and that the votes casted did not mean that one was less of a statesman or less spiritual than another. Number 2203 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that Representative Elton understood his earlier remarks correctly. CHAIR JAMES stated this had been a good exercise. The debate could go on for days. It was time to move on, however. "My personal belief is that life begins at conception." She also believed that any action to save the mother was appropriate. She further stated that, "My belief is mine." She was not here to condemn anyone else's belief because she could not get into anyone else's heart. She would never condemn or criticize anyone's belief, and she did not want anyone to criticize or condemn her belief. The issue of abortion was one that she did not want to talk about. But, the issue of parental rights was one that she did want to talk about. She also wanted to convince people-if possible-that she was right through the example of how she led her life. That was her religious and philosophical belief in a nutshell, and that was how she would approach any issue. In addition, she did not believe that HB 37 was another layer of governmental interference. In fact, it took away a layer of governmental interference. There were a lot more layers to go before returning to individual responsibilities. Number 2318 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved that CSHB 37(STA) move from the committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). Number 2323 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives James, Dyson, Ivan and Vezey voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton voted against the motion. The CSHB 37(STA) was passed out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.