SB 24 PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION  CHAIRMAN WILKEN called the Senate Health, Education & Social Services Committee (HES) to order at 9:00 a.m. and introduced SB 24 as the only order of business before the committee. Chairman Wilken said that he did not intend to report SB 24 out of committee today. SENATOR LEMAN , Prime Sponsor of SB 24, informed the committee that SB 24 is a revisitation of SB 105 in the 19th Legislature. SB 24 will make Alaska's current parental consent law enforceable. The current parental consent law is not enforceable because a 1976 Alaska Attorney General ruled that law unenforceable without a judicial bypass. Senator Leman pointed out that the national policy of the President is to see abortions become rare; this bill is a small step in that direction. He discussed the many areas of parental involvement such as permission for field trips, ear piercing, or medication given at school of which abortion is not included. Teens stand to benefit from the support and counsel that parents can offer during a difficult time. Senator Leman acknowledged that most families offer a supportive environment for their children. SB 24 would allow parents to be parents when needed most. Number 161 Senator Leman noted that 38 states have parental involvement statutes and of those, 27 states enforce the statute. Where the statutes are enforced, teen pregnancies, births, and teen abortions have decreased. SB 24 does not take away the right to an abortion as the Supreme Court has decided that in cases such as Roe v Wade. Senator Leman explained that SB 24 is consistent with the reasonable restrictions allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court, in this instance, restrictions on children. This bill is also consistent with Alaska's right to privacy decision. Number 201 JUDITH KOEHLER , Senior Legislative Counsel for Americans United for Life, informed the committee that Americans United for Life is a nonprofit, public interest law firm and educational organization. Americans United for Life has been involved in practically all the litigation involving abortions in the U.S. Supreme Court since and including Roe v Wade. Ms. Koehler noted that the organization's involvement in Hodgeson v Minnesota would be relevant to this legislation. In that case, Minnesota's parental consent law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Currently, 27 states have parental involvement laws. All of which have judicial bypass and are enforceable. Seven other states, including Alaska, have parental involvement statutes that are not enforceable due to the lack of a judicial bypass provision. If enacted, SB 24 could be successfully litigated and become enforceable. She discussed examples of overwhelming public support for parental notice laws in states such as Iowa, Texas, and Colorado. Ms. Koehler spoke to the effectiveness of parental involvement laws. The following information was obtained from the brief filed by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons in the Hodgeson v Minnesota litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. She noted that her office had prepared the brief for the physicians and surgeons. Between 1981 and 1986 after Minnesota's parental consent law was passed, teenage pregnancy rates fell by 20.5 percent, teenage birth rates fell by 12.5 percent, and teenage abortion rates fell by 27.4 percent. In some, the teen birth rate fell due to a reduction in the pregnancy rate, not an increase in abortions. Ms. Koehler stated that those statistics illustrate that legislation such as SB 24 is good public policy. Furthermore, many other states experienced similar results with the passage of a parental consent law. Ms. Koehler informed the committee of a report in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in May 1996 which concluded that there is no empirical support for the claim that recent restrictions on access to abortion has lead to higher teen birth rates. Number 262 Ms. Koehler noted that the Alaska Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers planned to testify that following the enactment of the Minnesota parental notice law, second trimester abortions among minors increased 18 percent. That statement is misleading because the total number of teen abortions in Minnesota declined as well as the number of second trimester abortions. However, the number of second trimester abortions did not decline as much as the total. Therefore, the second trimester abortions made up a greater portion of the total number of abortions. Ms. Koehler informed the committee that she had researched the abortion - breast cancer link. A study of teen abortions in Seattle, Washington, determined that a minor with a family history of breast cancer who aborts her first child prior to her 18th birthday all developed breast cancer by age 45. Parents would understand the implications of a teen's family history. Ms.Koehler stressed the need for a parent's right to know. Number 300 KRISTEN BOMENGEN , Assistant Attorney General with the Human Services Section in the Department of Law, indicated the possibility of constitutional challenges to this legislation. Ms. Bomengen noted that the legal issues she would discuss had been addressed in a Legislative Counsel memo in 1995. The parental consent requirement could be subject to a constitutional challenge which could be successful in Alaska's courts. A review of state jurisprudence in other areas reveals that when a state constitutional test is applied it is higher than the federal constitutional privacy test which supports the possibility of a constitutional challenge. Florida and California have parental consent statutes that allowed judicial bypass to be put in place. In these states, the law became unenforceable due to legal action. Currently, a stay is in place in California until the matter can be settled. Therefore, such litigation would be necessary in Alaska. Ms. Bomengen believed that a minor would be deemed to have a fundamental right of privacy that would be affected by SB 24. By raising the age from 16 in last year's bill to 18 in SB 24, would enhance the aforementioned argument. Furthermore, she believed that the court would find that the state has a compelling interest in this area of law. The compelling interests are enunciated in Section 1 of SB 24. Under a constitutional challenge, the state would have to illustrate a direct connection between the compelling interests and the ends to be achieved through the parental consent requirement conditioned by the judicial bypass. Such a test has been difficult for other states such as California. In conclusion, Ms. Bomengen pointed out that there is an equal protection issue with regards to the access of the judicial bypass procedure, especially in rural Alaska. Also Section 3 creates a new tort liability for a doctor. Since the Legislature is reviewing Tort Reform as a whole, it may be appropriate to review the tort liability in SB 24 at that time as well. Number 371 SENATOR LEMAN explained that the change in age in the bill last year was the result of committee action. Last year's bill did not pass on reconsideration and so the bill will start the process again. With regards to equal protection, a rural Alaskan teen would have to come to a community where an abortion would be provided. In these same communities a court would also be available. KRISTEN BOMENGEN agreed that the delivery of these services would likely involve travel. However, any constitutional challenge would be based upon the facts brought before the court. Ms. Bomengen wanted to point out that there would be a question about the genuine accessibility for a judicial bypass to persons in remote communities in Alaska. SENATOR WARD commented that everything to which Ms. Bomengen referred was subject to the court's interpretation which is unknown. Senator Ward asked if the Administration was opposed to the bill as currently written. He also asked if she would be offering amendments to address the previously stated concerns. KRISTEN BOMENGEN said that she was present in order to point out the legal difficulties with SB 24, not offer amendments. Ms. Bomengen stated that she was not present to speak to the Administration's position on SB 24. At this time, Alaska is subject to the same constitutional vulnerabilities and scrutiny as California. SENATOR WARD noted that as a legislator, he must make decisions that may have to go to the courts. He requested amendments in writing from Ms. Bomengen to address the problems she cited. KRISTEN BOMENGEN reiterated the following concerns with SB 24: the age change, the tort issue, and the equal protection vulnerability. CHAIRMAN WILKEN acknowledged Representative Kelly's presence in the audience. Number 430 RICK MITCHAM , Alaska Family Council and a parent, posed a series o questions indicating that parents are ultimately responsible for their child. Mr. Mitcham believed that a child should not be pregnant and alone facing the decisions that lay ahead. Furthermore, the child's immaturity would affect those decisions. Mr. Mitcham stressed that parental authority is being eroded. In conclusion, Mr. Mitcham requested that SB 24 be approved so that the responsible parties can make the right decisions. BOB LYNN , Vice President of the Alaska Right to Life and father, hoped SB 24 would be adopted. The vote on this bill is really a vote regarding the principle that families and parents are the foundation of society. Mr. Lynn pointed out the paradox of parents being held responsible for the communication of values and the physical and mental care of their children, while prohibiting the same parents from making an informed decision on a procedure such as abortion. There is due process for those parents who are unable or do not want to take care of their children. Mr. Lynn stated that abortion is not a safe procedure, regardless of propaganda to the contrary. With regards to privacy, Mr. Lynn emphasized that privacy applies to families and parents as well as women. Mr. Lynn requested a favorable consideration of SB 24. Number 510 SENATOR ELLIS asked if medical evidence regarding abortions being medically unsafe would be submitted for the public record. The bill speaks directly to the protection of the health of minor women which predisposes that abortions are medically unsafe procedures. Senator Ellis informed the committee that in one state where the parental notification - judicial bypass procedure has been ruled unconstitutional, the court found abortions to be a medically safe procedure. With regards to Ms. Koehler's comments about the study linking breast cancer to teen abortions, Senator Ellis believed that other medical studies had discredited that conclusion. Senator Ellis requested that the committee seek information on both of those issues. SENATOR WARD felt that Mr. Lynn would be an appropriate person to request the information referred to by Senator Ellis. Senator Ward requested that Mr. Lynn forward any relevant information to the committee. SENATOR LEMAN acknowledged that the safety of abortions could be debated, but he felt that Senator Ellis would agree that abortions would be safer if parents were involved which is the directive of this bill. SENATOR ELLIS agreed that the bill would improve the situation if the parent was loving and caring. On the other hand, if the parent was abusive, the situation would not necessarily be improved. Senator Ellis clarified that his comments were directed to the language in the bill stating, "protecting the health of minor women." Number 556 DEBRA JOSLIN , District Chair of the Alaska Republican Party in District 35, informed the committee that she was a parent. She would not want her daughters to have such a serious medical procedure without her and her husband's input. There are medical implications to abortions. Ms. Joslin felt that those parents who beat on their children because of their sexual activity are rare cases, but there are laws dealing with abusive parents. SB 24 should not be constructed around such a rare case. BARB RAWALT , District Finance Chair of the Alaska Republican Party in District 35, noted the illogical nature of parents being responsible for consent in routine matters of their minor children while a serious medical procedure like abortion could be performed on their child without their knowledge. She recommended a favorable vote on SB 24. EILEEN BECKER , Director of the Homer Crisis Pregnancy Center and a mother, noted that she had counseled many teens and seen the results of the lack of parental consent. She informed the committee that she is involved in the litigation of a botched abortion which has taken two years. Ms. Becker felt that it would be wise for Alaska to make this bill as legally sound as possible in order to avoid possible litigation, but it is important to get the law on the books. TAPE 97-1, SIDE B Number 585 Ms. Becker expressed concern that if this parental right was eliminated, other parental rights could follow suit. SENATOR WARD asked Ms. Becker to forward any information to the committee that dealt with the effects of abortions on minor women, especially if the effects were negative. EILEEN BECKER said that she could give statistics, but not details regarding specific cases due to confidentiality restrictions. There is not much documentation regarding the long-range ramifications of an abortion, however, there are many books available with case histories. KERMIT REPPOND reiterated the illogical nature of the current law. Mr. Reppond discussed the effects of immaturity on a teen life and noted that with regards to abortion, once the procedure occurs it cannot be reversed. He indicated that bringing a parent into the discourse of an abortion would alleviate some of the problematic results. With regards to the apprehension of moving forward on the part of legal aspects, Mr. Reppond felt any significant action taken by the legislature could result in a lawsuit. Mr. Reppond urged the committee to pass SB 24. Number 525 CHARLES TRIPP reiterated the sentiment that parental authority has been eroded. Mr. Tripp discussed a visit at a political forum in which people were appalled that the state could bundle pregnant children off to have abortions. Mr. Tripp expressed concern with the judicial bypass. With the judicial bypass, the court must act within five days or the abortion is granted and the parents are not involved. Mr. Tripp believed that the school nurse would have forms for the judicial bypass that would collect dust for five days in the court and the child would be granted an abortion. At best, the judicial bypass creates a five day waiting period for minors. This is a sad commentary. Perhaps, this illustrates the need for a parental rights amendment to the constitution. Mr. Tripp also pointed out that a child may allege abuse in court which would be sufficient for the court not to notify the parent. The parent does not have an opportunity to defend himself/herself against the accusation. SENATOR LEMAN said that he shared many of Mr. Tripp's concerns. He explained that SB 24 is modelled after other states who have enforceable parental consent laws with the judicial bypass. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that judicial bypass would be constitutional. SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to what sense Mr. Tripp meant that the state bundles people off to have abortions. CHARLES TRIPP clarified that he believed that the first person a pregnant child would see would be a school nurse; when he referred to the state he meant the school nurse. Number 464 MARK MOLDENHAUER , as a parent and an Alaskan, asked for the support of SB 24. This is an important bill for families. Mr. Moldenhauer said that the privacy propaganda and unconstitutionality that Ms. Bomengen presented is bunk. He reiterated the concern regarding the usurpation of parental authority. NATASHA CALVIN began by asking why a child should be forced to go to court in order to choose the safest of the three alternatives: a safe legal abortion, an unsafe illegal abortion, or carrying the pregnancy to term. Former Surgeon General Everett Koop, found that for young pregnant girls a safe and legal first trimester abortion was far safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. The United Nations' estimates that illegal abortions are 100 to 500 times more dangerous than safe, legal abortions. Also, the suicide rate among early teen girls who are unmarried parents is higher than foreign populations. Ms. Calvin asked the committee to imagine a 12 or 13 year-old girl going to Superior Court. Remember the case of Becky Bell who was from a loving family. Ms. Bell did not want to disappoint her family, so she had an illegal abortion and died from an infection. Ms. Bell's father is now educating others on the dangers of parental consent laws. Ms. Calvin discussed the testimony of Republican Senator Charles Cook from New York which indicated his opposition to bills such as SB 24. Number 403 SENATOR LEMAN believed that Ms. Calvin misrepresented the facts of the Bell case. The autopsy report of Ms. Bell said she had a spontaneous abortion or in layman's terms, a miscarriage. NATASHA CALVIN requested that Senator Leman forward her the evidence supporting his statements. SENATOR LEMAN said that the Bell case was very tragic, but the case does not support the notion that parents should not be involved in their child's abortion. If the Bell parents had been involved, the appropriate medical attention could have be used. VIRGINIA PHILLIPS , member of the Board of Pregnancy Aide in Sitka, informed the committee that she had been involved with women of all ages with problem pregnancies even before Roe v Wade. In 1975 she moved to Alaska and began helping people make decisions about abortions. The adoption option seems to have been forgotten. Ms. Phillips believed that even if this bill passes, many parents will choose abortion for their daughters. Ms. Phillips discussed her experience at a Native conference in St. Mary's where parents were frustrated with their daughters coming back from school and being deeply disturbed. As it turned out, these girls had abortions. With regards to the breast cancer link to abortions, the Fred Hutchinson Hospital Cancer Center has proved this link. Ms. Phillips believed that in every case she had dealt with the minor and parent relationship had been strengthened when the minor told her parent about the pregnancy. Most parents love and care for their children. Ms. Phillips emphasized that the parents are left to deal with their child's emotional and physical problems after an abortion. Ms. Phillips urged the committee to pass SB 24. Number 353 CORALYN OINES reiterated the inconsistency of abortion laws versus other medical laws. Ms. Oines applauded the committee's willingness to deal with the parental consent issue. She urged the committee to pass SB 24. DIANE WIGHT , on behalf of the Christian Coalition of Alaska, said that an abortion is not something that can be taken care of with a bandaid or a kiss like so many other things in a child's life. An abortion is a surgical procedure that effects the child for the rest of her life. Ms. Wight believed that an abortion creates an emotional scar in the child's life and therefore, the parent is effected by this as well. Ms. Wight supported SB 24. BRANT MCGEE , Director of the Office of Public Advocacy, informed the committee that he was present to comment on the role contemplated in SB 24 for the Office of Public Advocacy. Under SB 24, the Office of Public Advocacy would be appointed at the first hearing of the judicial bypass proceeding in order to provide representation to the minor. Mr. McGee noted that a fiscal note had been provided based on the assumptions of the latest statistics regarding the anticipated number of cases. There are innumerable factors influencing the number of cases and the number of minors that will seek judicial bypass proceedings. Such factors would be the availability of the information regarding judicial bypass to minors as well as the vagaries of judicial proceedings in different locations. Mr. McGee pointed out that the fiscal note does not include any assumption regarding the cost of appeals in individual cases or constitutional challenges to this law. He could not estimate how much litigation of the judicial bypass would cost. SENATOR LEMAN noted that Mr. McGee's fiscal note was based on the statistics of other states with respect to how many girls would not seek parental consent. The fiscal note does not seem to give credit for the guidance this procedure would have in leading girls to carry the pregnancy to term. Mr. McGee seems to conclude that those girls in other states who are not talking with their parents are seeking a judicial bypass. Senator Leman hoped that a significant number of these children would make other decisions, therefore crediting the fiscal note. Senator Leman suggested that Mr. McGee give some thought to how that would influence the fiscal note. BRANT MCGEE agreed with Senator Leman's comments. Mr. McGee stated that there is evidence that some states with judicial bypass actually experienced the opposite effect. For example, in Minnesota 43 percent of minors seeking abortions utilized the judicial bypass procedure which is slightly higher than the numbers upon which the fiscal note is based. The numbers used for the fiscal note are based upon a national survey regarding the willingness of teenagers to discuss the potential for an abortion procedure with their parents. Mr. McGee agreed that this is a murky area. Furthermore, the data from other states varies widely. Reviewing the national picture may not be as helpful as it may be in other areas. Number 256 SENATOR ELLIS asked if Senator Leman meant that the numbers upon which the fiscal note are based are incorrect because the intimidation of the court proceeding or the access to the court would prompt the minor to make a different decision. SENATOR LEMAN clarified that his remarks focused on the fact that the Office of Public Advocacy did not give any credit to the possibility that the minor would choose to carry the pregnancy to term and not utilize the judicial bypass procedure. In response to Senator Ellis, Senator Leman felt such a choice would be made due to access to good information and many other factors. SENATOR ELLIS felt that the prospect of going before a judge or living in an area where a judge is not readily available would pose the biggest factors in not choosing the judicial bypass option. Number 232 CRYSTAL BAKER , Alaska Right to Life, informed the committee that she had a daughter who had two abortions. Her daughter now regrets those decisions and has emotional problems due those decisions. Ms. Baker said that she too had emotional problems over the loss of those children. Ms. Baker did not understand how we have moved toward the state taking over our families and children. Government should encourage families to love one another. THEDA PITTMAN , Pro Choice Alliance, stated that the files from last year contain all the information necessary to defeat this proposal. With regards to privacy, pregnancy and abortion are considerably more serious than having ones ears pierced. SB 24 would not accomplish its stated purpose, it victimizes young women who cannot talk with their parents about their pregnancy because of a history of alcoholism, drugs, and/or abuse. The purpose of SB 24 is to outlaw abortion. Ms. Pittman acknowledged that similar laws had passed in other states. If a minor has good communication with her parents, then a law is not necessary. National statistics find that 60 to 62 percent of young women who have abortions have talked to their parents or have parental permission. There is a whole category of people for whom this law is irrelevant. Ms. Pittman stated that for those few minors who go to court, the judge approves the request. For example, over a period of years in Massachusetts of the 14,000 judicial bypass requests only one resulted in the notification of the parent. Of the 14 petitions, there were 14 denials. Of those denials, 12 were overturned within days and the other two became moot when one minor went out of state for an abortion and the other received parental consent for the abortion. Ms. Pittman pointed out that this process does delay the process for the minor woman. No one knows what happens to those who cannot communicate with their family or go to court. Bill Bell spoke to that point last year. The claim that Becky Bell spontaneously aborted is not true, the birth certificate does not say spontaneous abortion. Ms. Pittman suggested that the public's time and money should be used in order to support increased family planning services, comprehensive sex education, birth control and abstinence. Support programs which foster real parent - teen communication. Ms. Pittman said that when asked by a colleague if SB 24 is passed would one girl talk to her parents who otherwise would not, Senator Leman replied, "No, unfortunately they go to court." SB 24 is about making young women go to court. Number 105 SENATOR LEMAN did not recall saying that, but he hoped that SB 24 would encourage teen - parent communication and result in the minor caring the pregnancy to term. Senator Leman felt it inappropriate for Ms. Pittman to state the purpose of the bill, that would be her opinion. One of the objectives of SB 24 is to support the national policy of making abortions rare which he hoped even Ms. Pittman could support. SENATOR ELLIS reiterated the invitation to submit information to the committee. The supposed link between breast cancer and abortions and whether an abortion is medically safe are important areas, especially due to the language in the bill saying, "protecting the health of minor women." PAULINE UTTER , speaking as a mother and grandmother, remarked that the responsibility of a parent is most difficult during the teen years when the basic objective is to keep them alive. Ms. Utter resented the fact that the bill refers to children, these are girls that are being addressed in the bill. The bill does not suggest that boys should have permission or seek judicial bypass before having sex. The girls are being punished. SENATOR LEMAN commented on Ms. Utter's statements regarding addressing the individuals as children rather than girls. He did not view the judicial bypass as punishment for girls. Senator Leman felt that helping people make a decision should be viewed as loving, compassionate, and caring. PAULINE UTTER inquired as to how many of these minor women would be before women judges. SENATOR LEMAN did not know, there are women judges which would mean that some minor women should be before women judges. TAPE 97-2, SIDE A Number 010 DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director of the Division of Public Health, said he has a lot of experience in seeing how youth respond in different cultural settings in small rural communities. He thought a state law mandating parental notification or consent for minor women who choose to have an abortion poses significant dilemmas for the minor and her chosen health care professional. The health care professional may be forced to delay care or abrogate patient confidentiality, and in some cases expose a minor to physical or psychological harm. However, doctors routinely encourage their minor patients to consult with parents or guardians about treatment. Dr. Nakamura said that without confidentiality, many adolescents would not seek timely or appropriate care. Over 40 health care organizations subscribe to that position. Most parents ordinarily act in the best interests of their children and minors benefit from their advice and emotional support. Legislation mandating parental involvement are promoted on the basis of the theoretical benefits of strengthening family responsibility and communication. Experience has shown that about 61 percent of unmarried minors have informed one or both parents about their pregnancy. Over 20 percent of unmarried minors did not inform their parents, but did inform or involve at least one other responsible adult. Dr. Nakamura said that the most frequent reason minors cite for not informing their parents include the belief that the knowledge would damage their relationship, the fear it would elevate conflict or coercion, and the desire to protect a vulnerable parent from stress and disappointment. One third of minors who do not inform parents already have experienced family violence and fear it will reoccur. Although parental involvement in many cases may be helpful, in others it may be punitive, coercive, and abusive. Threatening a doctor with punitive measures for allowing his clinical judgement and practice be guided by what is best for the individual patient is not at all supportive of the best medical practice. Number 97 Legislation that precludes any consideration for psychological or emotional damage is denying the serious consequences from such omissions. He said that often young women are intimidated by having to get a judicial bypass because of anticipated fear and anxiety for loss of confidentiality that is associated with this action. In a small rural community it is almost impossible for a young person to access medical care, much less to appear in a judicial setting. Access for young women in rural communities is often compromised by the lack of knowledge and by great distances to a judicial system. There is no mechanism in most rural communities where confidentiality could be preserved during an attempt to identify the parent or custodian. Further obstacles to access to professional guidance and safe medical procedures can only increase the risk to the life and health of these children. Dr. Nakamura concluded that for these many reasons the Administration opposes SB 24. SENATOR WARD asked how many physicians statewide are trained in counseling for pregnancy as well as after care counseling. DR. NAKAMURA replied that it is a routine part of every physician's training. This is a statement from a physician trained as such. SENATOR WARD inquired as to how many physicians practicing this are Alaska Natives and how many are females. DR. NAKAMURA said that he would forward that information to the committee. Number 142 SENATOR WARD disagreed with Dr. Nakamura's assumption that this legislation would hurt rural Alaska. He discussed that he had been involved with villages in which young girls were shuttled through a process which resulted in abortions and even sterilizations. The options were not counseled as the process proceeded. Senator Ward asked Dr. Nakamura when parental counseling would be an obstacle. DR. NAKAMURA responded that parental counseling is desired. The problem is that there are parents that are less skilled in this form of counseling, and there are children in abusive and coercive relationships where counseling is not very successful. Dr. Nakamura reiterated that at least one third of those children who do not request consent are in abusive and coercive relationships. In response to Senator Ward , Dr. Nakamura said that providing the training information for pre-abortion counseling and after care would be difficult. The levels of training are different. For those specializing in this area, the training is greater and more in depth than those who do this as a concerned physician not as there primary responsibility. SENATOR WARD remarked that if in fact the physicians are not trained and abortion mills are being run in Anchorage or Fairbanks and counseling is not being done, then he wanted that information in writing. Perhaps, the parents would have an interest in that information. Senator Ward reiterated that he disagreed with Dr. Nakamura that this legislation would hurt rural Alaska. SENATOR LEMAN expressed disbelief that Dr. Nakamura felt that a physician could make a decision in the best interest of a child without the parent's involvement. With regards to the Administration's opposition to the bill, Senator Leman informed Dr. Nakamura that 78 percent of Alaskans polled on this topic believe that parental involvement/consent is appropriate and support it. Sixteen percent did not support parental involvement/consent and six percent were undecided. Perhaps, that information would affect the decision of the Administration. CHAIRMAN WILKEN announced that testimony would be taken on SB 24 at the meeting on Friday. Number 220 ANGELA SALERNO , Executive Director of the Alaska Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), opposed SB 24. Ms. Salerno stated that a pregnant women's right to choose or not to choose abortion was established by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade. That decision included all women, even those under age 18. There are over a million teenage pregnancies in the United States every year. Over 80 percent of those are unattended, nearly all pregnant teens are unwed, and 40 percent of them choose abortion. Ms. Salerno echoed Ms. Pittman's comments that SB 24 will not promote desirable parental consultation because most children, 62 percent in a nationwide study, are talking with their parents. NASW does support strong families, but SB 24 will be ineffective and possibly dangerous to the child in an unstable and troubled family. Fourteen percent of minors having an abortion believed that they would face physical violence and 11 percent feared violence between their parents if the child consulted the parent. With regards to the risk surrounding abortion, Ms. Salerno stated that abortion at all stages of pregnancy is safer than childbirth. The risk of major complications from abortion does increase 15 to 30 percent per week. Therefore, SB 24 would delay abortion which creates health risks. Since the Supreme Court made its decision, one of the leading reasons for illegal abortions is the desire to maintain secrecy. By far illegal abortions are the most dangerous. Ms. Salerno pointed out that in Alaska the courts' trend is to assign teenagers greater responsibility for their actions not imposing further restrictions. This legislation does the opposite. Number 275 Ms. Salerno informed the committee that under the Reagan Administration the Surgeon General was directed to develop a report regarding the detrimental effects of abortion. The Surgeon General was unable to accomplish that. Ms. Salerno did not believe that there is any proof at this time that abortion is detrimental to the long term physical or psychological health of the woman. Ms. Salerno commented on social links to teen parenthood and social problems. Kids Count Alaska 1996 which was developed by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska reports that in 1992, 52 percent of all mothers collecting AFDC in Alaska had their first children as teenagers. SENATOR WARD asked Ms. Salerno if NASW believed that all abortions are safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. ANGELA SALERNO answered that statement was a fact. She offered to find the citation for Senator Ward. SENATOR WARD said that he disagreed with that statement because it was based on a false premise. ANGELA SALERNO responded that it was somewhat medically and statistically proven. SENATOR LEMAN stated that Ms. Salerno had misinterpreted the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings by saying that all women were entitled to abortions. Ms. Salerno failed to discuss the subsequent decisions which specifically allow states to regulate and restrict children differently than adults. Senator Leman emphasized that SB 24 sends the message that teens should be more responsible and involved with their parents on decisions such as abortion. CHAIRMAN WILKEN invited those who did not have a chance to testify to return Friday to testify at that time.