HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE April 9, 1997 1:38 P.M. TAPE HFC 97-90, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 97-90, Side 2, #000 - end. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 1:38 p.m. PRESENT Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring Representative Davies Representative Martin Representative Davis Representative Moses Representative Foster Representative Mulder Representative Grussendorf ALSO PRESENT Senator Loren Leman; Theda Pittman; Debra Joslin, District Republican Chairman; Carol NIlson, Fairbanks; Virginia Phillips, Right to Life; Amy Skilbred, Alaska Civil Liberty Union; Carla Timpone, Alaska Women's Lobby; Sid Heidersdorf, Juneau; John Monagle, Alaskans for Life; Pete Nakamura, MD MPH, Director, Division of Public Health, Department of Health & Social Services. SUMMARY HB 50 "An Act relating to the use of broadcasting to promote or conduct certain classics or sweepstakes; and providing for an effective date." CSHB 50 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do not pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Revenue, dated 2/21/97. SB 24 "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 1 Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508, and 512.5, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska Administrative Rules." HCS CSSB 24 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with three zero fiscal notes, one by the Department of Administration, 2/3/97, one by the Department of Health & Social Services, dated 2/3/97, and one by the Department of Health & Social Services, dated 3/5/97; and with two fiscal impact notes, one by the Department of Administration, 3/21/97, and one by the Alaska Court System, dated 3/14/97. HOUSE BILL NO. 50 "An Act relating to the use of broadcasting to promote or conduct certain classics or sweepstakes; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to Rescind the Committee's action in moving CSHB 50 (FIN) out of committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Therriault explained that Amendment 1 (passed during the 4/08/97, House Finance Committee meeting) resulted in an some unanticipated consequences. Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to Rescind the Committee's action in adopting Amendment 1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Therriault noted that Amendment 2 would clarify that charitable gaming could be promoted but not conducted on the air waves. JERRY LUCKHAUPT, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY explained that the amendment would place in statute a prohibition against the use of broadcasting to conducting charitable gaming. The amendment would maintain the exemption that is provided for noncommercial broadcasting stations to conduct various types of charitable gaming activities. The exemption exists in current law. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment 2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to report CSHB 50 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. 2 CSHB 50 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do not pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Revenue, dated 2/21/97. SENATE BILL NO. 24 "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." SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, SPONSOR SB 24, spoke in support of the legislation. He observed that the legislation allows a judicial by-pass for minors seeking an abortion. A minor can petition the Court instead of obtaining parental consent. He maintained that the legislation takes a small step backwards in order to make a big step forward. He noted that the parental consent provision has been in statute since 1970. This provision has not been enforced due to concerns that, without judicial by-pass, the Alaska law is not constitutional. The United States Supreme Court has indicated that judicial by-pass is necessary to ensure the constitutionality of parental consent laws. The legislation is modeled after judicial by-pass laws in other states, that have withstood the constitutional test by the United States Supreme Court. Senator Leman noted that parental consent is required for many things. He observed that his daughter needed parental consent to have her ears pierced. He maintained that parental consent laws in other states have been effective in accomplishing a reduction of teenage births and abortions. He stated that Minnesota had a 20 to 25 percent reduction in teenage births and pregnancies, after the passage of parental consent laws. Senator Leman asserted that the there is broad support for parental involvement. Alaskan polls showed that 78 percent of Alaskans would support parental involvement. He observed that 27 states have and enforce parental consent statutes. He acknowledged that the legislation is not the only answer. He maintained that no abortion is really safe. He stressed that nothing is being done to make abortion more rare. Senator Leman noted that the legislation requires that 3 information regarding judicial by-pass be available at court and magistrate offices. He noted that the original version of the bill would apply to girls that are 17 years and younger. The Senate version would apply to girls that are 15 years old and younger. He observed 16 and 17 year olds account for 75 percent of abortions on children under 18. These would not be affected by the Senate version. Senator Leman noted that he would prefer that the bill reach more children. Representative Davies disputed allegations that passage of parental consent legislation reduces teen pregnancy and birth rates. He maintained that some statistics support the claim that the teen birth rate increased by as much as 38 percent after parental consent laws were enacted. Senator Leman noted that statistics can be manipulated. Representative Davies noted that the majority of teenagers already discuss their pregnancies with their parents. He questioned how the legislation would increase communication in dysfunctional families. Senator Leman acknowledged that 50 to 61 percent of pregnant teenagers discuss their pregnancy with their parents. He stressed the need to encourage more parental discussion. He indicated that parents are best able to help their children. He emphasized that the legislation is a "grandparents" bill. Representative Kelly noted that AS 25.20.025 provides that a minor may give consent for medical procedures if parental consent is not available. VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE testified via the teleconference network. She spoke in support of SB 24. She maintained that children do not have sufficient awareness of their options and consequences. She maintained that many of those that object to parental consent laws benefit monetarily from the minor's decision. CAROL NILSON, FAIRBANKS spoke in support of SB 24. She read from an article in the Christian Legal Society (copy on file). The article refers to a California Supreme Court ruling that maintained that California parental consent law does not violate the constitutional right of privacy. DEBRA JOSLIN, DISTRICT REPUBLICAN CHAIR testified via the teleconference network in support of SB 24. She felt that the age requirement for parental consent abortions should be raised from under 16 to under 18 years of age. She observed that adoption is an option. She maintained that parents have rights. She asserted that children will do what they can get-a-way with. 4 THEDA PITTMAN, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference network in opposition to SB 24. She provided members with a diagram demonstrating that only a small number of children would be affected by the legislation (copy on file). She maintained that children that cannot talk to their parents and cannot find their way through the court system may resort to illegal or self induced abortions. She asserted that the legislation has the power to destroy these children. She stressed that a law cannot increase parent- teen communication. She pointed out that a legal abortion is statistically safer than delivering a baby. AMY SKILBRED, ALASKA CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SB 24. She observed that Article I, Section 22 of the Alaska Constitution guarantees privacy protection. She stressed that every Alaskan is protected by this provision. She stated that the right to privacy can only be denied when the State finds a compelling state interest is served by denying the privacy rights due to all citizens. She observed that SB 24 does not apply to other medical services such as treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception. Parental consent is required by some doctors as a protection from litigation. She maintained that there is no compelling state interest that sets abortion apart from other medical circumstances. Ms. Skilbred pointed out that a teenager can have a child, relinquish a child for adoption, and make medical decisions for their child after birth without parental consent. She maintained that after having a child the teenager is treated as an adult. Ms. Skilbred asserted that the legislation supports the political and moral viewpoint of one group of citizens. She reiterated that there is no compelling state interest. Ms. Skilbred pointed out that Alaska has an explicit state constitutional provision guaranteeing privacy rights. She asserted that the legislation requires the expenditure of time and money on a cause that does not solve the problem. She stated that there is no quick fix to the teen pregnancy problem. She noted that many teenagers face drug and alcohol abuse, sexual harassment, eating disorders, depression, lack of identity, and deep uncertainty about themselves. She suggested legislators focus on promoting healthy families. Ms. Skilbred compared the legislation to sewing. She maintained that the legislation does not fit over the fabric of the Alaska State Constitution. CARLA TIMPONE, ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY testified in opposition 5 to SB 24. She maintained that the legislation is anti- choice. She observed that teens are twice as likely to delay medical care. She noted that the American Medical Association and the College of Obstetrics and Gynecology oppose parental consent laws due to the fear that teens will further delay seeking medical attention. She noted that courts tend to rubber stamp petitions. In Massachusetts only 14 of 14,000 petitions for judicial by-pass, filed by teenagers, were denied. She asserted that the high ratio of granted petitions demonstrates that pregnant teens are mature enough to make this decision on their own. She maintained that the legislation is an unfair burden on pregnant teens. SID HEIDERSDORF, JUNEAU spoke in support of SB 24. He emphasized that parents have certain rights and responsibilities in regards to their children. He maintained that no one knows more about their children than the parents. He asserted that parents have rights and responsibility for their children in regards to medical treatment. He expressed concern that parental care would be preempted by privacy rights. He stressed that minors will be well served by being required to consult with their parents. He maintained that some children would consult with their parents if required by law. He stressed that the law is a "teacher". Mr. Heidersdorf provided members with a handout, "Impact of Parental Involvement Laws - Various States" (copy on file). The handout provides statistics formulated by Human Life of Washington. Mr. Heidersdorf maintained that many pregnant teens do not receive sufficient counseling. (Tape Change, HFC 97-90, Side 2) Representative Davies clarified that Human Life of Washington is a pro-life group. JOHN MONAGLE, PRESIDENT, ALASKANS FOR LIFE, JUNEAU testified in support of SB 24. He pointed out that those opposing the legislation have not offered solutions. He spoke in support of parental involvement and rights. PETE NAKAMURA, MD MPH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES noted that all agree that it would be ideal if abortions did not occur and that a good parent should always be involved in their children's lives. He expressed concern with mandating that all children consult with their parents. He pointed out that one-third of pregnant teens are in abusive home 6 situations. He observed the difficulty teens face in consulting non-caring parents, who may have contributed to the problem. Dr. Nakamura acknowledged the seriousness of the problem. He pointed out that there is a big difference between having your ears pierced and having a baby. He stressed that the consequences are significant in the case of parental consent for abortion. He expressed fear that children will seek self induced or illegal abortions. Dr. Nakamura noted that statistics regarding parental consent on teenage pregnancies and births vary. He noted that he has seen statistics which demonstrate that up to 49 percent of pregnant teens seek abortions in adjacent states, when required to seek parental consent. He challenged assumptions that parental consent legislation has achieved positive results in all cases. Dr. Nakamura referred to polls regarding parental consent. He pointed out that responses are influenced by how questions are asked. He pointed out that, if asked, no one would choose to cut off their arm, unless they were also aware it was the only way to save their life. Dr. Nakamura reiterated that a normal abortion procedure is safer than any normal term delivery. He emphasized that this is particularly true for a minor who is not anatomically developed. Dr. Nakamura concluded by saying that he has significant concerns regarding the legislation. Representative Kelly read one of the survey questions to demonstrated that it was straight forward. "As far as parental consent is concerned, do you favor or oppose that at least one parent give their consent before a girl 15 years of age or younger has an abortion?" Representative Kelly pointed out that the legislation allows minors faced with an uncaring parent to get a judicial by- pass. He maintained that those that want to seek remedy from the State will have easy access to a judicial by-pass. Dr. Nakamura suggested that the outcome of the survey would be different if the question were: "Should minors be forced to consult their parents if their parents are abusive, uncaring, or the cause of the problem?" Representative Kelly reiterated that minors will not have to confront abusive parents. 7 Dr. Nakamura acknowledged that it is better to have judicial by-pass then to not have a remedy for the minor. He emphasized the number of minors that will have to go through the procedure and noted that only a small percentage are denied. In Minnesota only 21, of 12,000 petitions were denied. Half of the 21 denied were over-turned. He pointed to the level of effort required to deny only 12 petitions. He emphasized that accessing the judicial system can be intimidating for a child. Representative Kelly maintained that minors generally have a counselor, teacher or health professional to help them through the system. He provided members with a map showing the locations of court and magistrate offices (copy on file). He noted that minors would have to travel to Juneau, Anchorage, or Fairbanks. He stressed that minors will have difficulty protecting their privacy when they have to travel to have an abortion. Dr. Nakamura stated that there are many situations when children are away from their home environment. Representative Kelly stated that he would rather have the minor seek a remedy through a third party than to go straight to an abortion clinic. Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment 1 (copy on file). Representative Davies OBJECTED. Amendment 1 would change the requirement for parental consent from 16 to 18 years of age. Representative Kelly noted that children under 18 are minors. Representative Grussendorf spoke against Amendment 1. He pointed out that statutory rape applies to children under 16 years of age. Children over 16 years of age can make the decision for sexual contact. Representative Davies pointed out that the poll cited by Representative Kelly applied to children under 16 years of age. He added that younger children have better communication with their parents. He emphasized that as children grow they start to distance themselves from their parents as they make their own choices in life. He expressed opposition to the amendment. Representative Grussendorf noted that 16 years old is the trigger age for the emancipation of a minor. Representative Kelly pointed out that minors must go to court to obtain emancipation. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment 1. 8 IN FAVOR: Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Therriault, Hanley OPPOSED: Grussendorf, Davies Representatives Moses and Davis were absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (7-2). Representative Grussendorf MOVED to adopt Amendment 2 (copy on file). Representative Kelly OBJECTED. Amendment 2 would provide an exemption for minors that do not reside in a community were abortions are available. Representative Grussendorf observed that children are more likely to delay medical attention. Dr. Nakamura clarified that there are three communities that perform abortions in Alaska. Representative Grussendorf noted that the cost of travel can be substantial. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment 2. IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Davies OPPOSED: Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Therriault, Hanley Representatives Moses and Davis were absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (2-7). Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CSSB 24 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Grussendorf OBJECTED. He expressed concern with the adoption of Amendment 1. Representative Davies spoke against the legislation. He stressed that the legislation will not make dysfunctional families less dysfunctional. He maintained that the legislation will delay medical care and increase health risks. He spoke in support of adequate funding for the Healthy Families Initiative and the COMPASS program. He emphasized that drug and alcohol abuse are implicated in a majority of cases where minors do not communicate with their parents. He maintained that there needs to be discussion on quality day care, integration of programs between health providers and the school system, and reducing the effects of drug and alcohol abuse. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to pass HCS CSSB 24 9 (FIN) from Committee. IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Therriault, Hanley OPPOSED: Davies Representatives Davis and Moses were absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (7-2). HCS CSSB 24 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with three zero fiscal notes, one by the Department of Administration, 2/3/97, one by the Department of Health & Social Services, dated 2/3/97, and one by the Department of Health & Social Services, dated 3/5/97; and with two fiscal impact notes, one by the Department of Administration, 3/21/97, and one by the Alaska Court System, dated 3/14/97. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. 10