HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE February 13, 1997 8:06 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Ethan Berkowitz Representative Fred Dyson Representative Kim Elton Representative Mark Hodgins Representative Al Vezey MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Ivan Ivan COMMITTEE CALENDAR OVERVIEW: Department of Administration HOUSE BILL NO. 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." - HEARD AND HELD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 37 SHORT TITLE: PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY, KOHRING, VEZEY, MULDER, Ogan, Dyson, Martin JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/13/97 37 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97 01/13/97 37 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/13/97 37 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY 02/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/06/97 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/11/97 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER MARK BOYER, Commissioner Department of Administration P.O. Box 110200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200 Telephone: (907) 465-2200 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Department of Administration. DUGAN PETTY, Director Division of General Services Department of Administration P.O. Box 110210 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0210 Telephone: (907) 465-2250 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview on the purchase of the Bank of American building in Anchorage. ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Department of Administration P.O. Box 110200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200 Telephone: (907) 465-2200 POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the overview presentation by the Department of Administration. KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General Human Services Section Civil Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3600 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37. SHARYLEE ZACHARY Address not provided Telephone: Not provided POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37. ROBIN SMITH 14100 Jarvi Street Anchorage, Alaska 99515 Telephone: (907) 345-4407 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37. JOHN COGHILL JR. P.O. Box 58003 Fairbanks, Alaska 99711 Telephone: (907) 488-7886 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37. GERALD FINKLER 1976 West Athena Court Fairbanks, Alaska 99705 Telephone: (907) 488-8425 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37. DEBBIE STEELE P.O. Box 23688 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-3515 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37. KARI ROBINSON, Board Member Juneau Coalition for Pro-Choice No address provided Telephone: Not provided POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37. BRAD WHISTLER, Health Program Manager Central Office Division of Public Health Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110610 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0610 Telephone: (907) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-12, SIDE A Number 0001 The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by Chair Jeannette James at 8:06 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Dyson, Elton and Hodgins. Members absent were Berkowitz, Ivan and Vezey. Number 0053 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced that Representative Ivan Ivan was ill today. Number 0188 CHAIR JAMES announced the arrival of Representative Ethan Berkowitz. OVERVIEW: Department of Administration The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was an overview presented by the Department of Administration. Number 0256 MARK BOYER, Commissioner, Department of Administration, was the first to present an overview of the Department of Administration. He called Alison Elgee, Deputy Commissioner; and Sharon Barton, Director, Division of Administrative Services to the witness stand as well. He distributed a handout titled, "Department of Administration-Functional Organization" to the committee members. He explained the department was traditionally organized by function. It operated cross-functionally and laterally by utilizing all of the resources that were needed to solve a problem. The department was two-sided in that it focused on services to the public and on services to other state agencies. The Office of the Commissioner in many cases often served as the arbiter in matters such as, procurement and labor issues. COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated today he would focus on five projects that illustrated how the department used its tools of problem solving and how it interfaced with other state agencies. They were the following: the purchase of the Bank of America building in Anchorage, the executive order of the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the information services as an enabler, the flex plan implementation (RFP) and the senior services. COMMISSIONER BOYER also explained that Dugan Petty, Department of Administration, was here to explain the purchase of the Bank of America building in Anchorage. The reason for the purchase was a result of the leasing budget under pressure every year. The pressure was healthy, however, because it forced the department to look at every opportunity. The big push on the Senate side had been to look at bolder opportunities. Some of the higher price leased property in the Frontier Building in Anchorage was up in about two years. The Department of Natural Resources, a few other state office, the Governor's office, the Department of Commerce, and some senior services were located in the Frontier Building. Therefore, the department began negotiating for the sale of the Frontier Building to the state, of which, there was no satisfaction of price. So, the department began to look elsewhere-the Bank of America building. Commissioner Boyer asked Mr. Dugan Petty to characterize the management principles that would be used for the Bank of America building that were different than current owned buildings. Number 0898 DUGAN PETTY, Director, Division of General Services, Department of Administration, explained there was a sales agreement conditioned upon due diligence that the state was performing now. The department had until April 15, 1997 to decide upon that transaction. The final agreement was subject to legislative approval, however. The department would set up a budget component separate from the current leasing budget. In that component, the expense of the operation of the building would be budgeted. The expense would include the equity, maintenance, repair, management of the property, administration, and insurance. The department was also looking at the depreciation factor. Frankly, what would go into the depreciation would be renewals and replacements that would go to the up keep of the building, he stated. Therefore, the best vehicle would be to establish a fund that was specific to the building with legislation. The other factor to consider was the maintenance and operation costs for the other state agencies and private agencies that would be involved. The department projected in the first year about $3,750,000 in income from rent and expenses to be about $2,000,000, creating a surplus. The idea was to have a fund that would accumulate and allow the legislature to appropriate funds to operate and maintain the building for the stewardship of the facility. Number 1219 CHAIR JAMES commented she was excited to hear the proposal by Mr. Dugan Petty. She further commented when a state bought a building it took it off of the municipal tax rolls. She asked Mr. Petty, if there were private tenants in a building that didn't pay municipal taxes, was there an unfair competition? And, would you include an amount that would be payment in lieu of taxes to the municipality? Number 1270 MR. PETTY replied that was an excellent question. The strategy for the Bank of America building was to honor the existing lease agreements which had that element of tax already built in then replace the leases with state owned space. He called it a diminishing question. The State Employee's Credit Union asked about acquiring space in the building, and there might be other related businesses that the state would want to invite into the space, however. Therefore, a structured rent base would need to be looked at. The department was concerned about the adverse financial impact of the loss of the tax roll to the municipality of Anchorage. On balance, however, the purchase of the Bank of America building was good for downtown Anchorage. The department was committed to being in Anchorage and to being in business over the long-haul. Number 1360 CHAIR JAMES stated this issue was a two-headed coin. She was concerned about the perception that the state was in competition with the private industry that rented property to non-state agencies and its advantage of not having to pay municipality taxes. The term "payment in lieu of taxes" was one that needed to be addressed because it was good business. She asked Mr. Petty to consider these two perceptions when drafting the legislation. Number 1397 COMMISSIONER BOYER stated it was clear that the state already compensated municipal governments for all kinds of impacts through the municipal assistance revenue sharing program. He asked Chair James if she was suggesting an additional scheme for the Bank of America Building? Number 1416 CHAIR JAMES replied it was a separate issue. It was a perception by the public, especially in the area of competition. And, one of the goals of the government was to make the people more comfortable with its role. She did not know what the answer was, however. She only had ideas. She would like to see all facilities follow a similar plan as the one proposed by Mr. Petty to prevent further deferred maintenance debt. The current figure was $1 billion. Number 1479 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON commented, "You could generate a tremendous amount of goodwill in Juneau, if you did the same thing in Juneau." He asked Mr. Petty how he would structure the fund for the future maintenance and operation of the building? How would you structure it to protect it from future legislatures? Number 1513 MR. PETTY replied, "It's a partnership that we have with the legislature." It could be structured so that there was clear accountability. The Administration was dependent upon the legislature to appropriate funds; that was its prerogative and the Administration respected it. MR. PETTY further stated that part of the projections mentioned earlier assumed a third party property manager. It also assumed the kind of maintenance and repair that was going on now in the building. The department was really adopting a private sector model. Perhaps, with the model and the accountability, the appropriations would be forthcoming. Number 1587 ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Administration, stated the kind of fund being discussed was an internal service fund. It would work much like the information services fund today. The problem it faced was having the money that was the source of the payments to the fund; the money that resided with the agencies and not the legislature. Number 1608 CHAIR JAMES agreed with Ms. Elgee. The public drove the system, and she could not see the public allowing the legislature to use the funds for some other purpose. Number 1623 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked Commissioner Boyer if the Legislative Information Office and the legislative offices in Anchorage were located in the Bank of America building? Number 1633 COMMISSIONER BOYER replied it was located in the 500 block of 7th Avenue in Anchorage. Number 1656 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Petty who resided in the building presently? Number 1660 MR. PETTY replied a variety of tenants resided in the building. He cited there was 250,000 square feet of net usable space, of which, 60,000 square feet was used by the Department of Revenue, and 40,000 square feet was vacant space. The rest of the space was used by other tenants, such as, attorney offices. Number 1701 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS explained he was more interested in the percentage of what the state occupied. He wondered what the state would do with the Frontier Building in Anchorage. Number 1712 MR. PETTY responded the department negotiated hard with the Frontier Building for a lease-purchase transaction but it did not work. Number 1789 CHAIR JAMES stated these were questions that could be asked when the bill was before the committee members. She asked Commissioner Boyer to precede with his presentation. Number 1811 COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated the department attempted to decrease the cost of state travel focusing on the Juneau-Anchorage route. "Frankly, it's a tough nut to crack. There are cultural issues" involved and the department found tense resistance from many. COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated the department was focusing on the off-set printing business. He said it was a dead business, and the state should be out of it altogether. The department was looking at an on-line demand program as a replacement. Number 1905 CHAIR JAMES stated legislation had been passed that required many of the reports to be available upon request only. She agreed the state should not be involved in the off-set printing business. COMMISSIONER BOYER reiterated the department was looking at an on- line option. Number 1923 COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated that the department was attempting to move the DMV to the Department of Administration. It was understaffed and underfinanced, and it operated in an old fashioned environment with a lot of paper, control, and handoffs. The department had the tools to help the division and was moving forward with that proposal. The DMV he explained was about to move to a credit card environment for some transactions. It would bring the cost to the state down, and it would improve service at the DMV counter. It would be a faster transaction and the public expected that type of service. It was also developing a transaction based web service as other states were pushing for. In addition, a DMV office was opening in the State of Building in Juneau on the 8th floor. It would benefit the citizens of downtown Juneau and the employees of the state. Number 2147 COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated the department was involved in re-engineering the entire personnel system of the state. He distributed to the committee members handout titled, "Employee Acquisition-Executive Summary." It looked at compensating people based on their skills. It sounded simple, but that was not the way the state did business right now. It would be a faster and cheaper system overall. He cited an on-line application process as an example. Number 2286 CHAIR JAMES stated this was a beginning, "but, don't stop until you've managed to take care of our pay schedules." She suggested having the rates and advancements built into the system as opposed to having the unions scream for increases. A fair system was needed that provided those things by statute. Number 2306 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Commissioner Boyer if the on-line system would be just for Alaska or worldwide? Number 2313 COMMISSIONER BOYER replied, "Once your on the planet it was hard to get off." The doors were wide open. People did apply from outside of Alaska, of which, a standard letter was sent explaining the local hire philosophy. There were exceptions, however, and that would not change; it was just a bigger world to advertise in. There were positions that the state could not attract, recruit and retain, such as, computer programmers. The compensation plan did address this issue, but to be competitive in the technical market, it would cost the state more money. Number 2400 COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated that the state of Alaska was both ahead and behind in information technology. It had a good team that tried to stay current, and the department would continue to look at ways to help the state save money. He cited the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) was about to go on-line with its forms. It was understaffed and underfunded so the only way to make a difference was to move towards an electronic environment. TAPE 97-12, SIDE B Number 0015 COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated the flex plan implementation for the state's health plan was underway. The fundamental difference was to move towards a fully self-insured plan like the worker's compensation plan. Number 0039 MS. ELGEE stated that all of the state's insurance lines were self- insured, except for health insurance. Number 0044 COMMISSIONER BOYER stated it had worked in the state's interest in the past to shield itself from disgruntled employees and providers. It did not have that luxury any more, however. He also thought the plan would provide some savings for the state. The supervisory unit, confidential employees unit, three teacher groups and the three marine units bargained for the flexible benefit plan. In total, approximately 4,000 employees. The plan was effective on July 1, 1997. It gave an array of choices for the employee; to tailor the needs of each employee. The stated loaded by contract for each employee $450 per month into an account. The balance saved through the choice of the employee would go towards co- payments, for example. Number 0230 MS. ELGEE stated there was a default option for those that did not respond. She further stated the new flexible benefit provided for the first time a wellness component which included an informed health care line. Number 0254 COMMISSIONER BOYER further stated that the department continued with the previous Administration's initiative surrounding senior services; moving towards a full cost-of-care environment. That meant that the cost would be based according to the market. There was a bill that would cap the eligibility of the longevity bonus plan, and he hoped that the legislature would look at it seriously. It was an opportunity to redirect the savings-about $8 million-to other programs for seniors. Number 0331 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ applauded the department for moving the state's health insurance towards self-insurance. It would save money directly and it would keep Alaskan money in Alaska. Number 0346 CHAIR JAMES thanked Commissioner Boyer for his presentation. She encouraged the committee members to contact the Administration if they had any further questions. CHAIR JAMES stated the Department of Administration was a central player in keeping the government under control. She asked Commissioner Boyer to look at the issues of regulation review and inter-agency technological communication. They were issues that would fit well under the Department of Administration. HB 37 - PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION The next 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 0434 KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services, Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, was the first person to testify in Juneau. She was here today to primarily address the legal issues raised by HB 37 and the Department of Law's interpretation of the protection of privacy under the state's constitution. The current provision in statute was not enforceable because of rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court. The judicial by- pass had been adopted by some states in order to make the restricted access meet the constitutional requirements. And, under it had been effective in some states. It would not remain enforceable under the test of the Alaska State Constitution, however. The conclusion came from a study of state jurisprudence in this area. She cited the states of Florida and California where parental consent was not enforceable because it was considered unconstitutional. The California case was in an appeal status now, however. Consequently, the general status of consent provisions remained uncertain. And, in the states where stronger privacy protections were afforded the citizens, the laws had been unenforceable. The department believed that an Alaskan court would find that a minor had a fundamental right to privacy which was affected by this law. It also believed a court would find that the interest of the state would be compelling and legitimate. However, to meet a constitutional challenge the state would be required to demonstrate that the consent requirement would not place an undue burden on a young woman and that the state's interest would be furthered by the parental consent requirement. This had been difficult for other states to demonstrate because the courts had not found that this type of provision improved family relationships that had already deteriorated, for example. Another issue was the protection of the health of the minor. Young women today were very sophisticated about their own medical needs. The court would have to weight that against the potential that a minor might delay the procedure or might seek an illegal remedy because she was uncomfortable going to her parents. In California, the evidence was found to be overwhelming that the state was not able to demonstrate that this means advanced its interests. MS. BOMENGEN further stated that the department believed it would be difficult for many young women to access the judicial by-pass process in the rural areas. Therefore, the state would be required to demonstrate that genuine access was available. Number 0613 MS. BOMENGEN further stated that this law had been characterized as one that would pull the medical procedure into conformity with all other medical procedures that required parental consent. "In fact, it does the opposite," she declared. "It makes this an exceptional medical procedure in which a medical practitioner has to consider potential criminal penalties and extraordinary tort liability when making a decision with his or her patient." The consent requirements related to ear piercing, for example, were not directly addressed in state law. It was considered a general liability concern for individuals offering the service. Medical practitioners had some leeway to consider the needs of the minors and the needs of the parents in deciding to provide medical care in certain circumstances. Therefore, this bill created a different burden for this medical procedure with regards to parental consent. Number 0670 MS. BOMENGEN referred to Section 3 of the bill and explained it created a new cause of action for tort liability for physicians. She stated it would be appropriate to look at the new action in light of the fact that the legislature was looking at tort reform. Number 0695 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Bomengen, under existing law, what made this procedure protected under the privacy act? Could I infer that under existing law because of our privacy provisions in the constitution that really a minor does not have to have parental consent for any surgical procedure? Number 0721 MS. BOMENGEN replied under existing law there was a flexibility afforded to a physician and a minor patient regarding parental consent. Parental consent was preferable and practitioners preferred it for liability reasons. When in fact, the law recognized that there might be instances when parental consent was unavailable or not forthcoming. At that point, it became a matter for the patient and the doctor to consider the best interest of the patient and the parents and to make a decision to the best of his or her ability without considering criminal penalties. The procedure of abortion was protected under the federal constitution as a matter of privacy. The United States Supreme Court ruled that parental consent was not constitutional so the state of Alaska needs to comply with the law of the land. Number 0798 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Bomengen if he could infer that the federal law allowed for any surgical procedure on a minor without parental consent? Number 0809 MS. BOMENGEN replied, "I don't know what the federal law in itself states on this issue." The state law did not prohibit the offering of medical services except under the condition of parental consent. It did not invoke criminal penalties or tort liabilities. There could be other liabilities, she stated, that a doctor could face under civil law. However, it was not a case where there was an outright prohibition as HB 37 called for. Number 0854 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he still did not understand why under existing law that the surgical procedure of an abortion had privacy protection while others did not, for minors. Number 0865 MS. BOMENGEN replied she could answer that questions conclusively. It had been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court; the state had to take its guidance from that decision. She was not aware of other surgical procedures that the court had addressed other than in the realm of parents practicing christian science methods, for example. Number 0901 CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Bomengen what U.S. Supreme Court decision was she referring to that gave abortion special protection? Number 0919 MS. BOMENGEN replied it was the Planned Parenthood v. Danforth court case. She would reply with more specifics later. Number 0927 CHAIR JAMES stated this whole issue had nothing to do with abortion. The issue had to do with parental rights. She saw a great disaster in this country because the government felt it had a better handle on children than the parents. She would like to know why there was privacy with this issue-abortion-and no privacy with other issues. Furthermore, it was not a private issue according to society because it was on television every day. Number 0973 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that testimony indicated there was privilege communication when a juvenile was being treated for a sexually transmitted disease. He asked Ms. Bomengen if that was accurate? Number 0986 MS. BOMENGEN replied, "Yes, it is accurate." There was a provision in statute that specifically addressed the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. It also addressed treatment that might come outside of that realm, in which, parental consent was not forthcoming. Number 1008 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Bomengen if there were any other procedures where parental notification was not required? Number 1021 MS. BOMENGEN replied no immediate thing came to mind. The general rule was not that parental consent was mandatory in all cases and that a physician would face criminal and tort liability if he did not secure parental consent. The general rule was that when a minor sought medical care, the practitioner should make an effort to secure parental consent. But if a parent was not available, and consent was not forthcoming, then the practitioner and the patient should weigh the interest of the patient and the parents and proceed to the best of their judgement. Number 1065 CHAIR JAMES stated there was no provision in the law at this point in time that a physician ever had to get parental consent. "It's not a shall, it's a maybe should, but not a shall." Was that a correct summarization? Number 1084 MS. BOMENGEN replied she would not want to characterize it in quite that way because there is a stated preference in the law that parental consent be obtained; that efforts should be made to obtain parental consent. "You're correct in stating that it's not mandatory. It is not worded as a `shall.' It's not an absolute necessity that a parent be notified if a minor is seeking some sort of treatment." There were considerations that a physician might look at in order to determine if treatment was appropriate without consent. Number 1119 CHAIR JAMES wondered if emergency care was an example. She further wondered if the bill was broad enough. She reiterated this whole issue was the rights of parents. She had an aggressive attitude about this because of her personal experiences as a foster parent. She reiterated this was not just an abortion issue, it was a parental rights issue. "I think we need to lead our state back into the direction of giving parents more control over their children." Number 1164 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated a family was both the parents and the children. In this instance, the government was telling the child element of the family what she must do. Therefore, this bill was an intrusion of the government in that portion of the family. Number 1192 CHAIR JAMES replied the government should not tell the children what to do. The government should have the parents tell the children what to do. "That's what we're doing in this bill; is saying that the parent needs to tell the child, not the government have the child tell the parent what they're going to do." Her belief on this issue had absolutely nothing to do with abortion. It had to do with whether or not parents were in charge of their children, or whether or not the government was in charge of the children. Number 1245 MS. BOMENGEN stated the provisions in statute were constructed so that they recognized the real world problems that individual minor patients faced. That included the issue of seeking treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, for instance. And, looking at the reality of what types of discouragements there were for the child seeking that type of treatment, and what the public health responsibility would be for the state. In a general context, it acknowledged the position of a physical when he or she was confronted with a minor seeking medical treatment. Number 1301 CHAIR JAMES stated she understood the position of the physicians. A physician felt he or she was obligated to the needs of the patient. It did not relate to the issue of parental rights, however. Number 1338 CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Bomengen if getting a 13 year old girl pregnant was illegal? If a 13 year old kid got her pregnant then it was misbehavior and not an illegal behavior. However, if a 16, 17, 18, 20 year old or a family member got her pregnant, then it was an illegal act. She wondered if the perpetrator would be punished if the parents were not allowed to be involved. Number 1452 MS. BOMENGEN replied a countervailing consideration went to the concern of victim's rights. What type of imposition did this put on a young girl to come forward and pursue a criminal remedy? Some consideration needed to be given to the minor. Number 1488 CHAIR JAMES stated the parents were every bit a victim as the child in this scenario. "That's my point. The child is part of a family. The child is not out of a family until it reaches its maturity or emancipation. The idea that the child was out there with freedom to do what he wanted with government protection--the only government protection was for abuse, and to not separate those two issues was distressing." Number 1520 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Bomengen if the Department of Law attached a fiscal note to this bill? Number 1562 MS. BOMENGEN replied there was no fiscal note submitted by the Department of Law. It was a general practice not to submit a fiscal note for anticipated constitutional challenges because there was the chance it would not be challenged. She believed, however, that this bill would be challenged. Number 1615 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he had two legal opinions from private attorneys. He wondered if there was a legal analysis from the Department of Law. MS. BOMENGEN stated she would put her notes into a memorandum format. CHAIR JAMES opened the committee meeting up to the teleconference network. Number 1669 SHARYLEE ZACHARY was the first person to testify via teleconference in Petersburg. She was the mother of three daughters. In the state of Pennsylvania, the rate of abortions went down because of a parental consent provision, and the growth of crisis pregnancy centers around the state. This indicated that parental consent did make it possible for families to work together through a pregnancy situation. And, that the centers were working with the child through the pregnancy by finding the resources associated with bringing a child to full term. Usually the parents had the best interest of their children at heart, she stated. They had the best maturity to sort through what was best for the child and not to railroad the child into a quick fix situation that ultimately became financially beneficial for someone else. She appreciated the comments of Chair James surrounding the issue of not separating the child from the family. There were abusive situations, however, where a separation was needed. But, a judgement should not be made based on the unfortunate few. Number 1892 ROBIN SMITH was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. She stated dealing with an unwanted pregnancy was extremely difficult. Unfortunately, in the U.S. when a woman became pregnant there was only one acceptable choice-to have the child and become a good mother. An abortion was considered a heinous offense and society did not accept that giving up a child was a wonderful, loving act. "We prosecute parents who want anonymity and abandon a child on someone's door." She asked, "What position do we put women in who have an unwanted pregnancy?" If a woman felt threatened her actions could become extreme. She cited the unwanted grandchild of Representative Jerry Sander's who died of starvation, as an example. The parents wanted to help their older children through their desperation, but it did not happen. Even in good families, the communication process was not necessarily there. "You cannot order family interaction." She understood the intent of the legislature, and she prayed for better family communication. She preferred birth control or abstinence to abortion. But, when an abortion was not readily accessible the results were dangerous back alley procedures. The way to reduce abortions was to reduce unwanted pregnancies. "I implore you to spend your efforts in this direction." Research indicated that the vast majority of Americans supported more money spent on family planning. "Please use your religious convictions for the common good and address the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and not the consequences." The record reflected the arrival of Representative Al Vezey at 9:35 a.m. Number 2059 JOHN COGHILL JR. was the next person to testify via teleconference in Fairbanks. He approved of HB 37. It was good public policy because it encouraged parental responsibility. He cited in statute the state held the parent accountable in almost every area of life even for emancipated children. The state was assuming a responsibility that really was the parent's right and responsibility. He suggested amending it to the age of 18 like a bill in the Senate. Moreover, the family needed to be protected. The Alaska State Constitution gave the basis for the family to carry that responsibility. However, there was a shift in the definition of family. The bill would at least give more weight on the responsibility of families. "I hope you folks stick with it. I know it takes a little courage. I know it goes against the political correctness of liberalism. Don't be afraid of what the Supreme Court is doing. Allow the legislature to carry its weight of the balance of the check and balance system." Number 2236 GERALD FINKLER was the next person to testify via teleconference in Fairbanks. He was a college student. He saw the concerns of parental consent. He also saw that the benefits outweighed the reasons for the concern. Number 2278 DEBBIE STEELE was the next person to testify via teleconference in Ketchikan. She concurred with the testimony of Robin Smith in Anchorage. She was opposed to HB 37. "We cannot legislative family structure." Protecting the health of minor women needed to begin before the unwanted pregnancy. None of us believed that abortion was the answer. It was a tool that had been used, but it was not the answer. The minor should be able to have a choice. There were circumstances that most of us would not understand that would prevent a young girl from feeling safe from telling her parents. That was a terrible state to be in, but it was the truth. She urged the committee members to vote against HB 37. "It's not an issue that needs to be dealt with in the legislature." It was between a woman, her physician, her family-hopefully-but it doesn't belong in the legislature." Number 2448 KARI ROBINSON, Board Member, Juneau Coalition for Pro-Choice, was the next person to testify in Juneau. The coalition was opposed to HB 37. The sponsor claimed that the bill would promote communication and parental involvement. TAPE 97-13, SIDE A Number 0001 MS. ROBINSON further stated that the American Academy of Pediatrics opposed parental consent laws. These laws resulted in later and riskier abortions. The AMA found that parental notification laws increased the gestational age at which the induced pregnancy termination occurred increasing the risk. The American Academy of Pediatrics had taken the position that legislation mandating parental involvement did not achieve the intended benefit of promoting family communication. But, it did increase the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medal care. The facts were that health care providers did encourage teen to talk to their parents of which most teen did. Prior testimony indicated that this type of law affected those young women who could not tell their parents. They had important reasons for not telling their parents-usually abuse. To involve the parents could put the teen at further risk of harm. No matter how loving and caring a family was there was no guarantee that a daughter would go to her parents if she found herself pregnant. And, the tragic result of denying access to health care for teens resulted in unsafe and illegal abortions. The legislation did not promote the health and safety of young women, it put them at greater risk. The judicial by-pass prevents a formidable barrier to young women. It did not provide an accessible and confidential alternative. Its only effect was to hinder a minor from obtaining an abortion. She reiterated HB 37 put young women's health and safety at risk. While unconstitutionally restricting a women's right to choose. Number 0229 BRAD WHISTLER, Health Program Manager, Central Office, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services, was the next person to testify in Juneau. He distributed to the committee members three handouts. The first was a list of national organizations that opposed similar legislation that was before Congress in regards to Title X. The second was an editorial on a study addressing the relationship between abortion and breast cancer. The study did not find a link between breast cancer and abortion. It also addressed the disclosing and reporting issue of an abortion that would contribute to the results of a study. The third was an article from the American Journal of Psychiatry titled, "The Psychological Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion-Denied and Completed." It concluded that there was not a link between an abortion and depression. When there was a link it was found to be related to prior incidents in the woman's life. CHAIR JAMES announced she was ready to move the bill from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. The next committee of referral was the House Judiciary Standing Committee. She called for a motion. Number 0413 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved that CSHB 37(STA) move from the committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He called it a procedural objection. The bill was advertized for public hearing on Saturday, February 15, 1997. If the bill was moved today the public would be denied their opportunity to testify. CHAIR JAMES replied she understood the concern of Representative Elton. The Saturday meeting was cancelled anyway because of other things. She reiterated the next committee of referral was the House Judiciary Standing Committee where testimony would be taken. Number 0476 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that he was bothered by the motion because he planned on having debate in the committee on the bill. He was not prepared today for debate. It had been indicated to him that the bill might not even be moved out of the committee on Saturday. He would be ready for Saturday. "Quite frankly, Madame Chair, this process distresses me. I don't think it is fair to the public and I don't think, frankly, it's fair to me." Number 0515 CHAIR JAMES thanked Representative Elton for his concerns. She disagreed, however. She believed there had been a good hearing on this bill. The discussion had ensued during the testimony and additional discussion would not make any difference. Number 0533 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ also objected to the motion. "I think what this does is-and I say this with all due respect-but it gives the appearance that these proceedings are a charade if we're not even allowed to discuss our views." It was clear what his views were at this point, but he would be very interested in what the other members of the committee had to say on this subject before casting a vote. Likewise, he would like to think that what he would have to say would impact the other members. "If we deprive this bill of substantive debate, that does an injustice to the process." Number 0577 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON withdrew his motion. He agreed with Chair James that the debate would not change the votes, but he wanted to respect the process so that the members could debate amongst themselves. He very much respected the efforts of Chair James to move the bill forward. Number 0609 CHAIR JAMES replied, "Quite frankly, I don't believe that any amount of argument, any amount of debate, that we haven't already had in the testimony is going to change a vote in this committee." Her goal was to move legislation through the process. She respected the withdrawal of the motion-nevertheless-made by Representative Dyson. Number 0659 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Chair James if he could make a motion to table the issue until Saturday, February 15, 1997, or until Tuesday, February 18, 1997. CHAIR JAMES replied she was not interested in tabling the bill. She was interested in moving it out of the committee or not moving it out of the committee. She would prefer to move it out. She yielded to the committee members for a motion. Number 0687 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that CSHB 37(STA) move from the committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). Number 0706 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. CHAIR JAMES stated the committee was out of time today. She announced it would meet at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 15, 1997, of which, the committee would debate the issue then move the bill to the next committee of referral. The motion was left on the floor. ADJOURNMENT Number 0728 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting at 9:50 a.m.