MINUTES OF THE

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      February 24, 1993

 

 

 

The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:00 p.m., on Wednesday, February 24, 1993, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Vice Chairman

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Diana M. Glomb

Senator Lori L. Brown

 

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Sue Wagner, Lieutenant Governor, State of Nevada

Senator Mark James, District 8, Las Vegas

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Pepper Sturm, Principal Research Analyst

Judy Alexander, Committee Secretary

Susan Henson, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dr. John Richardson, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

    University and Community College System of Nevada

Dr. Neal Berger, Director, Institute for At-Risk Infants, Children,

      & Youth and their Families, University of South Florida

Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Howard W. Lindsey, M.D., President, Planned Parenthood of Northern       Nevada, Nevada Physicians for Choice

Kathleen England, Attorney

Pat Elzy, Associate Director, Planned Parenthood of Northern         Nevada

Katy Harrell Steinkamp, Marriage & Family Intern, Clinical Director

    Community Counseling Center, Las Vegas, Nevada

Diana Wilson, Executive Committee of Nevada Campaign for Choice

Eileen Roberts, President, Mother's Against Minors' Abortions

Bill O'Mara, Attorney

Miyoshi Callahan, Abortion Alternative Christian Services

Claudia Katania, Concerned Citizen

Matthew J. Barulich, M.D., Carson Medical Group Women's Center

Patricia Glenn, President, Nevada Right to Life, Director,     ProLife League's Pregnancy Assistance Center, Chair of Board    of Casa de Vida

Herb Ireland, Senior Pastor, Sparks First Church of the Nazarene

Rev. Donald G. Nelson, President of Christian Action Council of         Northern Nevada

Lucille Lusk, Nevada  Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NCCC)

Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum

 

 

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing by introducing Dr. John Richardson, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for the University and Community College System of Nevada, who spoke on the University of Nevada System Planning Report.  Dr. Richardson explained Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 396.505 requires the Board of Regents to prepare a comprehensive plan for the next 4 years, and biennially bring the plan up-to-date for the ensuing 4 years and present it to the legislature.  He indicated a copy of the report was mailed to each member of the committee.  He went on to explain the university and community college system made considerable progress in planning during the past 2 years.

 

Dr. Richardson then referred the committee to the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) Planning Schedule (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.), which portrays planning activities planned for the next 2 biennium.  The schedule fits the components of planning together, both at the institutional and the system levels.  There has been an effort undertaken to integrate the planning process more closely with the biennial budget process. 

 

Dr. Richardson noted the center four columns of the schedule (Exhibit C), each represented a fiscal year, beginning in July.  On the left side in the first column he pointed out the System Mission Statement which had adopted strategic directions.  This was initially done in January 1992, however, it does not show on this chart. The report does show the process of reviewing strategic directions commenced in January and it is anticipated the board would formally adopt them in August.  Dr. Richardson pointed out the board had also adopted the Institutions' Mission Statements. 

 

Dr. Richardson explained the board recently held a workshop at which time they reviewed the institution's academic master plan and, although not yet complete, he indicated the board would continue to review them over the coming months and anticipated adoption of the academic master plans in the near future. 

 

In addition, Dr. Richardson said the board showed capital construction priorities establishment and anticipated it would be completed in December of 1993, which he remarked was more for the legislative schedule that the board's.  He stated the biennial budget review for the next biennium, after the coming biennium, would begin in March of 1994.  Dr. Richardson said the board would finish its work on the biennial budget in September of 1994 at which time they would present it to the executive branch. 

 

Dr. Richardson then referred the committee to the final line of the current Planning Report, developing the next legislative planning report, page 21, (Exhibit D.  Original is on file in the Research Library.)  He went on to highlight some of the trends in the university and community college system. He pointed out to the committee figure 1 at the top of page 21 (Exhibit D), from 1980 to 1990 the system was the fastest growing among the 13 western states in terms of enrollment.  The university and community college system grew at a rate of over 50 percent during the 10-year period. 

Dr. Richardson then brought the committee's attention to figure 2 at the bottom of page 21 (Exhibit D), which shows the trend lines in terms of enrollment increases from fall 1983 to fall 1992, charted in terms of headcount, with a top line figure of approximately 66,000 individual students that can be served.  He went on to explain the reports equate headcount to full-time equivalency (FTE) students, those taking 15 credit hours.  The current full-time equivalent enrollment in the system is 36,000 students. 

 

Dr. Richardson drew attention to page 22 (Exhibit D), which showed the FTE enrollment trends by institution.  He pointed out similar data on page 23 (Exhibit D) which displayed the headcount enrollment by institution.   Page 24 (Exhibit D), figure 3 showed the historic trend in enrollment growth since 1985, projected to the year 2000.  It is estimated there will be approximately 56,000 full-time equivalent students enrolled in the university and community college system in the year 2000.  With a current FTE enrollment of 36,000, that is an anticipated growth of 20,000 students by the year 2000. 

 

Dr. Richardson said these projections are relatively precise, because the students that will be served in that year are already enrolled in elementary school.  The board has been able to track students through the elementary and high school grades and thus know the proportion going on to higher education. 

 

Dr. Richardson then referred the committee to page 26 (Exhibit D), which shows the projected number of high school graduates in Nevada.  He pointed out this number is growing very rapidly, as well as enrollments at the elementary and secondary level.  Nevada is the state showing the most rapid growth among the 13 western states in the number of high school graduates. 

 

Dr. Richardson directed the committee to page 27 (Exhibit D), which showed 78.8 percent of the state population having a high school diploma.   He remarked that this figure is slightly above the national average and Nevada ranks 19th among the states in proportion to the states' population with a high school diploma.  The next table displayed the percentage of population with some college.  Dr. Richardson mentioned that 47.3 percent of the state population had attended college for some period of time and Nevada ranked 21st among the states. 

 

Dr. Richardson then called attention to page 28 (Exhibit D), whichoman's right to reproductive choice.

 

Ms. Wilson testified that some of our coalition members asked her to introduce letters of their opposition to S.B. 59 (Exhibit P).  She then went on to read names, and ask members present to stand and remain standing until completion of the list:  Campaign for Choice; American Association of University Women; American Civil Liberties Union; Nevada Republicans for Choice; League of Women Voters of Nevada; Nevada Women's Lobby; Nevada Women Political Caucus; Nevada Nurses Association; Planned Parenthood of Southern and Northern Nevada; UNR Women's Political Action Network; Washoe County Democratic Party Executive board; National Association of Social Worker's; American Medical Association; and Physicians for Choice.  

 

Ms. Wilson went on to list other organizations whose letters were not in the packet, but who oppose S.B. 59: Pro Choice Advocacy; UNLV Students for Choice; Business & Professional Women; American Nurses Association; American Public Health Association; American Psychiatric Association; American Bar Association; American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Catholics for Choice and Society for Adolescent Medicine.  

 

Chairman Rawson inquired if these were members of the above organizations and if they represent the organizations in opposition to S.B. 59?  Ms. Wilson replied "yes." 

 

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing in favor of the S.B. 59

 

Eileen Roberts, President, Mothers Against Minor's Abortions (MAMA), spoke in favor of S.B. 59, as referenced in her summary (Exhibit Q). 

 

Senator Neal asked Ms. Roberts if it would be her position that notification should require or enable the parent to give some information about the medical history of the child which the doctor might not be able to ascertain from the child?  Ms. Roberts replied yes, she did see it that way. 

 

Senator Brown asked Ms. Roberts how the medical history question would be resolved if a minor goes through judicial bypass.  Ms. Roberts felt the judge would be responsible for establishing the minor's medical history in conjunction with making a final decision.  She pointed out most doctors would not treat an individual without having prior medical records available.  Senator Brown asked if Ms. Roberts felt the medical history should be part of the 1 day judicial hearing and Ms. Roberts emphasized it would be important. 

 

Bill O'Mara, Attorney, spoke in support of S.B. 59.  He felt the purpose of S.B. 59 was to confirm the rights of parents to counsel, educate and help their children.  He went on to state he thought it important to think about three things, the rights and responsibilities of the minor, the rights and responsibilities of the parents, and the rights and responsibilities of the physician.  He repeated that 70 percent of teenage girls who are pregnant talk to their parents. 

 

The next issue Mr. O'Mara discussed was the process of getting an abortion should the young girl not want to talk to her parents.  He explained the young girl may go to court for judicial bypass and have an interview.  He disagreed with the attorney from Clark County who said these are difficult situations.  He stated he had been practicing law in the state of Nevada for 24 years and did not find any judges that made it difficult for people to get into court, especially when the law mandates it.  The judges are here to follow what you tell them to do.  

 

Mr. O'Mara emphasized that S.B. 59 is good law.  He testified he had some recommended changes he would like to make.  Chairman Rawson asked if Mr. O'Mara had those to submit for the record.  He stated he did not but would read them to the committee, and proceeded with his changes.

 

Instead of saying "an abortion immediately necessary to preserve the patient's life or health," on line 3, I would suggest you insert in its place, "an abortion is a medical emergency," and use the definition that was in the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case which says, "that condition which, on the basis of the physician's good faith clinical judgment so complicates the medical condition of the pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which the delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."   Second, on line 7, following the word "abortion," I would eliminate the period and put in "by the physician."  I would indicate, and I think this is appropriate, on line 3 of page 2, which says "authorization shall be deemed to have been granted" and I would suggest you change the word "granted" to "deny," because then if she has not received the notification within that 1 day, she automatically knows it is denied and she can go to the next step.  She can either go to the judge and get it immediately, which I think would happen in the areas of rape, incest, and domestic violence, or she would know that if she had not received it within 1 day, she could go to the next step.  I would also change line 33 which says, "Any other evidence that the court may find useful in determining whether the minor is entitled to avoid parental notification."  I think because of the decisions and the attorney general's opinion, and because it also comports to line 21, page 1, you should add, "or, that the abortion is in her best interests."  I think that is required by law and if you do not put it in, it will more than likely be found unconstitutional.   I would also, on line 37, put in "good cause upon clear and convincing evidence," which was the requirement used in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.  Again, on line 43, page 2, I would delete the word "granted" and the minor would know if it was not granted by the court within the 2 judicial days and she could then take that 1 day and file her appeal to the supreme court.  I would leave "granted" in the last paragraph of 8 because if the supreme court does not act she has to have the right to do the abortion. 

 

In addition, there are several things I think the committee should be aware of.  In this day of advertising and subtleties that take place, I want you to remember these girls may have low self esteem and will be susceptible to advertising.  We may have the greatest of communication with our children, it is not to say they cannot be subverted from that by advertising. 

 

Chairman Rawson asked if the committee had any questions.  Senator Neal inquired as to the meaning of the word "notification."  He asked Mr. O'Mara whether or not notification is supposed to be informational, or whether it gives a parent a right to interfere with the decision of the child.  Mr. O'Mara responded the parent has no right at all to interfere, just be notified, which is informational.  He referred to committee to the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case which authorizes parental consent. 

 

Senator Coffin asked Mr. O'Mara if the minor would have to know about judicial bypass in order for the bill to work, and if so, would advertising in appropriate locations be useful.  Mr. O'Mara responded he did not feel advertising would be that effective. 

 

Miyoshi Callahan, Abortion Alternative Christian Services, spoke in favor of S.B. 59.  She stated she was before the committee as a survivor of an abortion.  Ms. Callahan testified that at the age of 15, without her mother's consent, approval or knowledge, she had an abortion.  She went to a planned parenthood clinic in the state of Iowa, where she received no counseling whatsoever.  She did not tell her mother, because it was not required.  Ms. Callahan stated her mother did find out about the abortion, which caused a deterioration in the mother/daughter relationship for many years.  Ms. Callahan stated at age 23, when she had to have a hysterectomy due to the abortion, she and her mother broke down the barriers and communicated.  She emphasized the deterioration of her relationship with her mother and father was pronounced, because the state did not require a minor to have parental consent, let alone notification of a parent prior to an abortion, and therefore urged the committee to vote in favor of S.B. 59.

 

Ms. Callahan presented an informational packet to the committee as Exhibit R.  Senator Neal asked Ms. Callahan how she would see herself reacting if a doctor called to advise that her daughter was seeking an abortion.  He questioned if she would take that as a means of interfering with the daughter's decision or, would it be informational.   Ms. Callahan replied she would look at it as a matter of courtesy from the physician to call me when it concerns my children.

 

Claudia Katania, Concerned Citizen, spoke in favor of S.B. 59.   She testified that minors are the responsibility of their parents and due to lack of maturity must be protected from the impersonal counsel of strangers and from the uncaring profit-seeking advice of some doctors and the dangers of making irrational decisions on their own.  She pointed out minors cannot have their ears pierced, get a tatoo, have cosmetic surgery, or have their teeth cleaned without the parents being notified or giving written consent.  Ms. Katania stated the notification requirement is not an interference by government in personal matters.   She felt laws concerning minors and abortions are not consistent with other laws that protect children from possible physical, emotional and psychological harm.  Ms. Katania felt it is only logical that parents be notified before their child has an abortion. Ms. Katania expressed her support of S.B. 59.

 

Matthew J. Barulich, M.D., Carson City Medical Group Women's Center, spoke in favor of S.B. 59.  He stated he felt S.B. 59 protects the welfare of the young girl who is pregnant. 

 

Dr. Barulich commented that as a gynecologist he sees minors who come in needing care and surgical procedures, and it is important in those cases they get consent from their parents.  He explained if a young girl needs a surgical procedure, he must be able to explain the complications of that procedure as well as obtain all the medical history.  Dr. Barulich went on to emphasize it was his opinion the minor is immature and not always able to make decisions in her best interests.  He explained state law requires a physician notify a parent whenever he does a procedure on a minor. NRS 139.30 states that a parent or a legal guardian must consent to any procedure.  He testified the basic underlying idea is that the parent must be involved to make the best decision for that patient.  Dr. Barulich called attention to the fact that schools require notification.  He explained there is a Douglas County School District policy for nurses which states no medicine will be administered without written request of the parent.  This is not only for prescription medicines but also for over-the-counter medicines. 

 

Dr. Barulich pointed out abortions have the highest potential for complications.  He quoted from a 1992 edition of a gynecological textbook showing the serious complication rate for abortions range from 1 out of 50 cases if done between 17 and 20 weeks to 1 out of 1,000 if done between 9 and 10 weeks, with an average of a little bit more than 1 out of 100.  The text defines serious complications as hemorrhage requiring transfusion, complication requiring a second surgery, and infection.  He stated in 1987 there were 55,000 abortions between 17 and 20 weeks with a complication rate of 1 in 50, that means 1,100 had serious complications.  He indicated there are other complications, such as circle lacerations, which can occur in as many as 1.6 out of 100 suction abortions, amount of metria, or blood being collected inside of the uterus, which can lead to complications at a rate of up to 1 per 100 suction abortions, perforation of the uterus with a rate of .2 per 100 suction abortions, this bleeding can cause complications leading to a hysterectomy, if there is a large amount of bleeding at the time of the procedure.  Also, retained tissue which requires a secondary procedure, this occurs in about 1 out of 100, and infection, which occurs in about 1 out of 100 suction procedures.  Some of these complications can lead to infertility, inability to get pregnant later, or scarring inside the uterus, with the same effect as well as incompetency of the cervix, meaning that the baby might deliver early.  Mortality is listed at a rate of 1 out of 200,000.  That might not seem like much, but with 1.6 million abortions per year, that means there are eight deaths per year. 

 

Dr. Barulich provided Exhibit S to the committee.  He stated C. Edward Koop, Surgeon General in 1990, noted definite documentation of potential side effects from abortion, including infertility, damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birth weight babies.  Dr. Barulich testified it is difficult to collect accurate data regarding abortions and the data is somewhat controversial.  He felt parental notification is extremely important and cited in Minnesota, statistics show the abortion rate decreased and pregnancy decreased between the periods of 1975 and 1980 when there was no parental notification, to the time of 1980 and 1986 when there was parental notification.

 

In summary, Dr. Barulich felt the American people believe notification is important.  He pointed out a January 9, 1992 workman poll which said 80 percent of the population favored parental notification laws and a March 4, 1991 Gallup poll which said 69 percent favored parental notification laws.  He closed by stating as a representative for the Nevada Physicians for Life, he strongly supported S.B. 59.

 

Senator Neal asked Dr. Barulich, in that he would be the one with the mandatory duty to personally notify the parent/guardian in these particular cases, what did he think personal notification should be, what form should it take.  He queried if he thought it was informational, or does it gives the parent the right to interfere with the child's decision.  Dr. Barulich responded that notification would require the parent and child to make a decision together.

 

Senator Neal asked Dr. Barulich if he felt notification gives the parents a right to involve themselves in the decision of the child.  Dr. Barulich stated "not necessarily, but in many situations it would."  He felt notification would allow the parents and minor the opportunity to discuss the problem.

 

Senator Brown asked Dr. Barulich if a minor needed parental consent to carry a fetus to term and give birth to a baby.  She wanted to know if this was an exclusion which Dr. Barulich mentioned.  Dr. Barulich replied the law states an emancipated minor is someone who has given birth to a baby, so someone who is pregnant and has not given birth to a baby is not excluded.  Chairman Rawson rephrased the question and asked if an underage woman needs permission to carry a baby to full term.  He asked Dr. Barulich if he were to do any type of medical procedure to help the girl in the delivery, would she sign an informed consent?   Senator Brown asked if the parents would have to be notified if a minor walked in and she was pregnant.  Dr. Barulich stated that according to the law you must have consent.

 

Senator Brown asked that if, based on the statistics previously given, giving birth or having an abortion is more dangerous.  Dr. Barulich stated there are complications to both deliveries and abortions.  Senator Brown asked Dr. Barulich if he had statistics on complications due to pregnancies.  Dr. Barulich replied he did not have the statistics with him but there were complications from delivery. 

 

Patricia Glenn, President, Nevada Right to Life, Director, ProLife League's Pregnancy Assistance Center, Chair of Board of Casa de Vida, spoke in favor of S.B. 59, as referenced in her summary (Exhibit T).  Senator Neal asked Ms. Glenn to state her affiliations.  He then asked if the ProLife League Assistance Center had a notification as part of the procedure.  Ms. Glenn stated the assistance center does not perform abortions, nor do they refer for abortions, they simply give the minor help to go through a pregnancy.  She went on to explain the assistance center will give the girl assistance in talking to her parents or they will help find her medical care, make her aware of the community resources which are available, and they will counsel her if she wants it.  The assistance center offers an alternative to abortions. 

 

Senator Neal asked if Ms. Glenn thought the parents should know.  She replied that yes, she felt the parents should know and the assistance center encourages the girls to talk to their parents. 

 

Herb Ireland, Senior Pastor, Sparks First Church of the Nazarene, spoke in support of S.B. 59, as referenced in his summary (Exhibit U).  Senator Neal asked Pastor Ireland if he would honor the wishes of a minor who confessed she was pregnant but said she would not notify her parents.  Pastor Ireland replied "yes" due to pastoral confidentiality and parishioner confidentiality. 

 

Pastor Ireland commented that one young lady struggled with this exact issue.  She did not tell her folks and felt guilt, depression, and the post abortion syndrome.  Pastor Ireland stated that the first reaction for the parent is shock, then resentment and then anger, and secondarily, the talking about options would begin.  That would be his definition, information first.

 

Reverend Donald G. Nelson, President, Christian Action Council of Northern Nevada, spoke in favor of S.B. 59, as referenced in his summary (Exhibit V).

 

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing for 10 minutes of rebuttal or comments by those opposed to the bill.

 

Senator O'Donnell stated he had a question for the doctor for choice.   He read from a complaint filed June 5, 1992 (Exhibit W). Senator O'Donnell testified Dr. Sol T. De Lee was doing abortions by the dozens and hiding under the secrecy of no parental notification.  He pointed out Dr. De Lee had his license taken away and signed a certificate agreeing to have all the charges against him dropped if he would surrender his license.  Senator O'Donnell called attention to doctors who perform abortions hiding under a cloak of secrecy for financial gain.  He stressed he found this offensive.

 

Senator Rawson commented he appreciated Senator O'Donnell's enthusiasm.  Kathleen England noted the issue being discussed above was medical malpractice, which is not limited to those who do abortions, nor is it limited to the medical profession, as malpractice is even committed in the practice of law.  Senator O'Donnell inquired if Ms. England knew of Dr. De Lee, who had the largest abortion clinic in Las Vegas.  Ms. England replied she did not know Dr. De Lee but the legislature had passed very comprehensive legislation to allow citizens who have been victims of medical malpractice to file lawsuits to seek redress for the damage they have suffered.   

 

Ms. England reminded the committee that the American Medical Association, as seen in (Exhibit P), came out against parental notification laws, and the reason was because they understood  parents are generally supportive, understanding and can provide helpful guidance to their children.  She noted the federal government states there are 1.5 million cases of child abuse every single year and, although no study has specifically dealt with the issue of violence toward a child as the result of a pregnancy, they do believe, based on all the studies that have been done, that the 6 percent of minors would be in very serious danger of either losing their life or being severally beaten if they had in fact revealed to the parent they were pregnant or contemplating an abortion.

 

Chairman Rawson wondered if it did not open the door to arguments as there might be other very personal important decisions that a minor should have to make.  He went on to clarify there are many issues considered to be personal and private, and certainly emotionally upsetting if other people were to find out about them, yet we have held all those other issues to a certain standard.  Ms. England replied that we have, and that is partly because you have not tried to legislate it, but you have left it up to the wisdom of the physician performing the procedures.  Chairman Rawson declared it is a requirement in Nevada law to have an informed consent. 

 

Ms. England replied that the informed consent depends upon the ability of the patient to give that informed consent.  Chairman Rawson stated he felt that was the heart of the issue, can a 13-, 14-, or 15-year-old give a really informed consent to do something of this magnitude.  Ms. England replied that there is nothing to prevent a good physician, treating a 13-year-old patient, to question that patient and determine whether or not he believes this young woman can make an informed consent.  She went to state she would defer to the doctor on this one.  Chairman Rawson commented that a different standard had been established for this and understood the argument that this is justified because it is a very important issue.  Ms. England remarked that it is one of the fundamental rights under the constitution.  Chairman Rawson commented that by our process of handling it this way we are creating differences in the law and areas that are ill-defined are not defined.  He stated there may be other approaches, but felt it best not to pursue that as other people have questions. 

 

Chairman Rawson did state there was another question that came to mind.  In the child protection act, passed in 1985 I believe, there was great concern about getting at-risk children into proper protective custody, or whatever we have to do to protect that child, even if it means the dissolution of a family in doing that.  He went on to comment that through this process of teenager being forced to tell a parent, we have one of the greatest sources of discovery of incest, abuse and other things which put children at serious risk.  He wondered what a teenager's response would be, one who approached a doctor for an abortion, which was caused by her father, "you can't tell my father, he is the cause of it."  Chairman Rawson felt in this situation we immediately have cause to give shelter to that child.  Chairman Rawson asserted this does not justify the law, but could this not also serve as a source of protection for many of these young women.  Ms. England replied it could, but we must look at it from a practical viewpoint, and at the statistics shown the committee which point out that the overwhelming majority of young women involve their mothers and 25 percent of those mothers choose not to tell the father.  Chairman Rawson replied he understood, but explained this law allows for that and that mother and daughter would still be able to make the same decisions they could make otherwise.  Ms. England stated that as an investigative tool for the police department to determine instances of incest, it appears to make the process more difficult for the young pregnant woman, because now we are going to go through a process of an investigation of incest.  Chairman Rawson remarked he did not have the definitive answer for this but felt he wanted to raise the question as some protection could be offered.  Ms. England noted the case with the District Attorney's Office in Massachusetts and why incest is not reported and the denial that goes on in families.  She stated she did not want to put this young woman into more trouble than she already had. Chairman Rawson replied the young woman would be in serious trouble if she was in an incest situation.

 

Senator Coffin declared to Ms. England that he was going to research the suggestion she made on the difficulties with the judicial bypass, as there seem to be a lot of flaws which could possibly be corrected through amendments.  He went on to question why we have judicial bypass, is it because custom prevails in that we started with judicial bypass, or are there other bypasses that make sense, if not judges, perhaps others such as professionals in some fields that might be as dispassionate or disconnected from the process theoretically, as a judge might be, or someone who would profit.  Ms. England replied that the creation of judicial bypass procedures here in the Nevada legislature tracks the constitutional decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.  She stated this body passed its first parental notification law in 1981 and it was enjoined at that time.  She went on to explain that it was fixed up in 1985 and it was again enjoined as being unconstitutional.  She stated the process of fixing the law has gone on as the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the state does have a right to regulate abortion as the later stages of pregnancy are approaching.  Ms. England stated one of her concerns is the mere existence of a judicial bypass, a requirement that it be there and the fact that you are going to have notification unless you have procedural proceeding.  "This is going to scare off teenagers who are afraid to tell their parents."

 

Ms. England stated the efforts of the committee and state money may be better spent in dealing with parenting, with issues of sexuality, and teaching children responsibility for the consequences of their actions.  Ms. England felt the committee's efforts would be better directed toward dealing with the other end of the spectrum, which is to prevent the teenage pregnancy, than in trying to fix it once the teenager is pregnant. 

 

Senator Neal questioned the child's privacy right which overrides the parent's right to know.  The child in this particular case, the unemancipated minor, under the age of 18, presumedly living at home - is that a question we are looking at or should be looking at?  Ms. England replied she thought so.  Senator Neal asked if the right to privacy of a minor would override the right of the parents to know about their child.  Ms. England replied, "yes," and went on to explain this is what lawyers refer to as the "penumbra of the bill of rights."  She explained this was first recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, case where the state of Connecticut passed a law that said, "only married people can have contraception."  She went on to state the U.S. Supreme Court said unmarried people have a right of privacy and what they do in their bedrooms is up to them and the right to get pregnant or not to get pregnant, and to use contraceptives is a fundamental right.   

 

Senator Neal pointed out the discussion is about children, under 18, unemancipated, not grown-ups or adults who can make their own decisions.  Ms. England replied the Bellotti v. Baird, 443 US 622, case says that it was illegal in Massachusetts to display a contraceptive device to someone under the age of 18 and Bill Baird displayed a diaphragm and was arrested.  Senator Neal stated we are not dealing with the right of privacy.  Ms. England stated the right to have contraception is the right to privacy.  Senator Neal replied that we are talking about a discipline, not about someone having something in their pocket that you do not see. 

 

Howard Lindsey then interjected that every state in the United States has codified the right of a minor to seek treatment for venereal disease without the parental consent or notification.  He went on to state that the same precedent applies to minor's obtaining help for problems relative to drug abuse and substance abuse.

 

 

Senator Coffin stated that Congress has declared that pregnancy shall be considered an illness and to treat it as such. 

 

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NCCC), stated she would attempt to answer some of the questions that have been asked and not completely answered accurately. She stated that Mr. O'Mara would like to respond to the question about constitutionality, although it is her understanding the letter from Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa laid out quite clearly that the Casey case defined what was necessary to be constitutional. 

 

Mr. O'Mara responded to the question from Senator Neal about the privacy of the young girl versus the right of the parent to be informed.  He stated the privacy issue is now called a liberty and it is no longer a right of privacy.  He explained that liberties of children are limited, they do not have the liberty to drink.  Mr. O'Mara stated that children do not have the liberty necessarily to get an abortion unless the parents are notified.  He suggested an amendment to the bill wherein an abortion should not be performed for 24 hours after the physician has given the notification.   Mr. O'Mara felt this 24-hour period would allow the opportunity for communication. 

 

Senator Rawson stated the bill allows the parent to be involved, at least in the trauma afterwards, which right now is excluded.  Mr. O'Mara agreed with Chairman Rawson's statement that if a doctor were to call, it would be incumbent upon the parent to explain to the doctor the possible complications, but secondly, it would be incumbent upon the doctor to advise the parent of what possible complications might take place after, so the parent could be prepared. 

 

Ms. Roberts wished to make a point with respect to the girls and the medical malpractice suits against clinics.  She stated her daughter had the opportunity to file suit against a clinic, but upon thinking about going through the pain again decided against filing suit.  Ms. Roberts felt this is the reason we do not have more young girls able to bring lawsuits against the clinics. 

 

Lucille Rusk remarked that she felt the resources would be best spent on preventing pregnancy on the front end.  She did state she felt parental notification works on the front end.  She said in the state of Minnesota it was shown the pregnancy rate for 10 to 17-year olds declined 43.3 percent during the 5 years following the parental notification law which was passed in that state.  Ms. Lusk pointed out there are different laws which apply to counselors and ministers than the set of laws which apply to medical procedures relating to minors.  She stated that with counselors and ministers confidentiality is required, whereas with medical procedures, parental notification is required in all cases.  

 

Ms. Lusk maintained the bypass procedures were written for the small percentage of children who are at-risk.  She explained in other states, planned parenthood and other clinics lead teenagers through the bypass procedure so it is not so confusing for them.  Ms. Lusk stated that if any provider becomes aware of an abusive situation, incest, or any other, they should be subject to the same mandatory reporting requirements for child abuse that all others are, so that child can in fact be protected.  Ms. Lusk concluded by asking the committee to support S.B. 59.

 

Senator Coffin stated he felt the attorney general could bring our laws into conformity and constitutionality which is important, and in addition felt it was the committee's duty to try to make whatever bills or laws we have on the books constitutional. He pointed out it is the duty of the committee to give our best in any piece of legislation that comes along in order to make sure that it really is workable, but making it constitutional does not make it workable or practical.  He asked Ms. Lusk if the committee runs into difficulty as they try to amend the bill to make it workable, is there any other bypass which would be useful?  Ms. Lusk replied she could not answer that question because she did not know about another bypass until today, but would be happy to give it some thought and work with some others to see if there is some other possibility. 

 

Ms. Roberts stated Virginia passed a parental notification bill that required anybody with a parent be informed. 

 

Mr. O'Mara replied the reason for the judicial bypass is because the system is already set up in a way that the judge is impartial and cannot rule on any issue in which he has an interest.  He stated if the judge was known to have participated with the abortionist in any way, he would be violating the judicial cannon of ethics.  He went on to state that any other number of bypasses might be useful, but you run the risk of having to set more rules for other people with conflicts of interest would raise other issues of constitutional magnitude. 

 

Ms. Roberts commented that if a child is in foster care and needs consent or notification of the parent, there is already a process they have to go through, which might be workable.

 

Chairman Rawson pointed out the comment that judges may be prejudiced, or they may be biased, which is a concern with any issue taken before a judge.   He questioned if Mr. O'Mara had any legal response to that issue.  Mr. O'Mara replied inherent problems in our judicial system and that is why we have a code of ethics.

 

Janine Hansen, representing Nevada Eagle Forum, requested chairman Rawson place their support of S.B. 59 in the record.

 

 

Chairman Rawson noted for the record additional written testimony was received prior to the hearing and is included as Exhibit X.

 

Chairman Rawson then called an end to the hearing on this bill.  He pointed out there will be a work session on Wednesday, March 3rd; however, there will be no more testimony taken.  He remarked if anyone wants to submit written testimony for the record that will be accepted. 

 

There being no further business, Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 59, at 6:20 p.m.

 

      * * * * *

 

                  RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                          

                  Susan Henson,

                  Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                                   

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

 

DATE:                              

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities

February 24, 1993

Page 1