HJR 5 - CONSTIT AMNDMNT: FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE Number 2025 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business would be HJR 5, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to freedom of conscience," sponsored by Representative Martin. Number 2039 REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN said the supreme court has subjugated freedom of conscience - only a statutory right versus a constitutional right -- But the U.S. Constitution, and many other states, guarantee it. The court(s) has also put freedom of religion with freedom of conscience. Historically, freedom of conscience was more superior. Should freedom of conscience be a constitutional right rather than a statutory right. Number 2168 PATRICK DALTON testified via teleconference from Delta Junction. Mt. Dalton quoted from Revelation, chapter 13 versus 16, 17 and 18, stating we are commanded not to receive a mark on the forehead or hand. He believed a national identification number [social security number] is a step in that direction. Mr. Dalton wondered how the freedom of conscience would impact him if it comes to the point where he is required to violate his religious beliefs. Number 2261 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Dalton, since he had not taken his social security number, if he had no interest in social security rights or benefits. Number 2292 MR. DALTON indicated he ran into a lot of discrimination recently and didn't believe he would be able to receive his Alaska permanent fund any longer. He was taxed $300, or more out of the permanent fund, and believed there is no recourse to get it back from Internal Revenue Service. Number 2331 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated for a couple years he did not get a dividend check because he did not believe in the Permanent Fund Dividend Program. But, he receives it now because he contributes it to a charity - that was his freedom. He recognized, in a way, Mr. Dalton was expressing his freedom of conscience. Representative Martin noted, however, Mr. Dalton must suffer the consequences accordingly. Number 2350 CHAIR JAMES stated nothing in this life is free, but we do have some freedoms and we can choose. Number 2369 KENNETH JACOBUS testified via teleconference from Delta Junction. He said he testified on HJR 5 before. Since he testified, the supreme court decided Mat-Su Coalition for Choice v. Valley Hospital Association, - it is even more clear that things are out of balance in the state of Alaska. He indicated Alaska is now the most pro-abortion state in the United States. The Alaska Supreme Court and Valley Hospital stated that the Alaska Constitution protects abortion more broadly than the U.S. Constitution protects abortion. Under the supreme court decision, unwilling participants may be forced to perform abortions. The supreme court also said, in Footnote 18, that a person's own religious belief cannot be a compelling state interest because that could violate the establishment clause. Number 2400 MR. JACOBUS said Valley Hospital will have to pay approximately $150,000 in attorney's fees, to the other side, plus their own attorney's fees because they relied on state statutes. The state is also going to lose the parental notification and partial birth abortion laws in judicial review based on the Alaska Constitution. Number 2424 MR. JACOBUS indicated the legislature needs to allow the people to vote on two issues relating to the Alaska Constitution. Put freedom of conscience into the constitution so that Alaskans will not be forced to violate their conscience. Most important the subjection of abortion needs to be taken out so that the constitution is made neutral. TAPE 98-3, SIDE B Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON believed the issue of life support has a different opinion as a matter of conscience. He asked if this applies much more broadly than pro-life, pro-choice. Number 0015 MR. JACOBUS agreed. He pointed out that he is not necessarily concerned about pro-life, pro-choice. Mr. Jacobus stressed he is concerned about keeping the constitution neutral - and not have it support one side or the other. He said there are gray areas in this, but believed a person's right to be protected in their own beliefs is so important that the gray areas could be settled later. Number 0043 CHAIR JAMES stated she had struggled over our constitutional rights of freedom of religion - including keeping government and religion separated in public schools. Chair James asked if freedom of conscience is a stronger statement than freedom of religion. Number 0079 MR. JACOBUS responded it is a stronger statement of your right to protect yourself against being forced to do something that you do not want to do. Number 0095 MR. JACOBUS concluded there are two different concepts, one of which is protected, one of which is not protected right now. Number 0104 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Jacobus to point out the language indicating that an individual can be compelled to do something against his conscience in the Valley Hospital case. Number 0110 MR. JACOBUS stated that was his belief as to what the effect of the position is. He noted there was no specific language in opinion that states that - that was the logical exception of the opinion. Number 0118 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked for clarification - that is not part of the opinion. Number 0127 MR. JACOBUS commented that the result of the opinion makes Valley Hospital do things which are against the consciences of the members of the Board of Valley Hospital. The opinion does not have broad language which says any person may be ordered by the government to violate their conscience. Number 1146 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he is concerned with freedom of conscience. He asked what impact it would have on the subsistence debate. MR. JACOBUS replied that he did not know. Number 0158 CHAIR JAMES indicated HJR 5 would be brought up at the next House State Affairs Committee meeting.