MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session May 3, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, May 3, 1995, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and was teleconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building in Las Vegas. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Kathy M. Augustine Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Bob Coffin Senator Bernice Mathews STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Judi Bishop, Primary Secretary to Senator Raymond D. Rawson Carol Martini, Primary Secretary to Senator Maurice Washington Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary Diane Rea, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Eileen Roberts, President, Mother Against Minors' Abortions (MAMA) Bill Denny, M.A., M.S.T., Family Counselor Ava Marie Sayre, Teenager Mark Baltazar, Director, Crisis Pregnancy Center, Las Vegas, Nevada Matthew Barulich, M.D., Board Certified Obstetrician and Gynecologist Claudia Catani, Citizen Activist Tim Post, Attorney Shelly Fisher, Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada Edwina Prior Jeffrey Wrightson, M.D., Obstetrics and Gynecology Pat Elzy, Associate Director, Planned Parenthood of Northern Nevada Keith J. Tierney, Attorney Sonia Hem, University of Nevada, Reno, Women's Political Action Network Buffy Martin, University of Nevada, Reno, Women's Political Action Network Isaac Pierce, Student Suzanne Denton-Pratt, Licensed Clinical Social Worker Rabbi Richard Schachet, Metro Ministry of Southern Nevada Bob Fulkerson, Parent Abby Johnson, League of Women Voters of Nevada Sarah Chvilicek, Northern Division Chair, Nevada Women's Lobby Mary Larsen, President, Nevada Women's Political Caucus Sharon Brezney, President, Capitol Women's Political Caucus Denise Renee Duarte, President, Reno Business and Professional Women Holly VanValkenburgh, American Association of University Women Stephanie Zapherion, Northern Nevada President, National Organization for Women Rosalie Clark, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter Karen Layne, Chairperson, Southern Nevada Women's Political Caucus Paul Brown, Southern Nevada Coordinator, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada Amy Meedel, State President, National Organization for Women Diana Wilson, Campaign for Choice Ruth Mills, President, League of Women Voters of Las Vegas Valley Patricia Glenn, President, Nevada Right to Life Kris Jensen, Nevada Concerned Citizens Andy Anderson, C.H.I.L.D. of God Maggie Tracey, Chairperson, Campaign for Choice Laura Fitzsimmons, Attorney Shelly Fisher, Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 408. He explained the committee will hear testimony from people in Las Vegas via teleconference as well as those present in Carson City. He advised the audience he would be calling the witnesses according to a prepared list. He stated, since the time allotted for oral testimony is somewhat limited, anyone wishing to submit written testimony for inclusion in the minutes may provide that material to the committee secretary. SENATE BILL 408: Revises provisions relating to abortions for minors. (BDR 40-1376) Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe District 2, told the committee that while the issue of abortion is very controversial, he wants to make it clear that this bill does not address the issue of pro-choice versus pro-life; rather, it deals with family values and affords parents the opportunity to participate in their children's lives when making decisions that will affect them during their adolescence and also during their mature life. He said this bill attempts to rectify the current statute voted on by the public in 1989, which states that the parent should be notified, but which was deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. He told the committee the provisions in S.B. 408 will render the current statute constitutional, so that parents can be notified. He went on to explain the bill as it is currently written. Senator Neal asked Senator Washington, when a minor makes a request to a judge who has 1 calendar day to render a decision, and the judge denies that minor the right to have an abortion, does the same judge hear the appeal, and appoint counsel to represent that minor. Senator Washington said he suspects it would be a different judge and counsel would be appointed by the judge who will hear the appeal. Chairman Rawson sent for a bill drafting advisor to clarify that issue for Senator Neal. Senator Neal expressed his concern that judges may not be available on weekends. Senator Washington told the committee S.B. 408 makes the provision that the judge has to be available on weekends or holidays in order to insure that the appeal process or judicial bypass is complete within a timely order. He said anything outside of 24 days becomes unconstitutional, so the judge would have to make himself available on weekends if the bill passes as currently written. Senator Neal commented his concern is that requiring the judges to meet at a certain time may render the statute unconstitutional because of the separation of powers. Senator Augustine asked Senator Washington if the definition of a minor on page 2, line 15, is going to conflict with any other statute where age is mentioned. Senator Washington replied it does not. Senator Coffin said the provision for judges to make themselves available on weekends and holidays is something that has been established in other states and is not precedent setting. He asked Senator Washington if he knows how many states have judicial bypass for notification. Senator Washington said 25 states currently have a judicial bypass. Senator Coffin asked Senator Washington if he has checked with the administrative offices of the courts to find out if they can comply with the legislation as presently written. Senator Washington replied he has not. Senator Coffin voiced his concern that this referendum will cause judges in Nevada to take a public, pre-election position on the issue of pro-life versus pro-choice. Senator Washington reiterated this issue is not about pro-life versus pro-choice. He stressed the voters addressed that issue in 1989. He maintained this bill would not require the judges to state an opinion, but merely require them to comply with the law. Senator Coffin asked Senator Washington if he thinks there is a way to write into the statutes a means to insulate the courts, because, from a practical standpoint, it will become a pro-life versus pro-choice issue. He said he and Senator Washington may agree this bill is about family values, but insisted it will be reduced to an abortion issue. He asked Senator Washington if there is anything the Legislature can do so the judges will not have to face that issue. Senator Washington replied, "Unfortunately, if we are all insulated in this world, I guess we would all be immune to everything that comes [our way]." He pointed out if one seeks public office, one is not immune to anything, so one has to make his choices, and stand by his convictions. Senator Neal asked Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, whether or not the Legislature can force the judges to meet on Sunday, and if that requirement would pose a problem regarding the separation of powers. Ms. Erdoes said she does not believe that requirement would pose a problem because there are other provisions of the law where the Legislature has required the court to do certain things. She explained the United States Supreme Court has upheld similar judicial authorization in other states. Senator Neal said, "So, when we put the provision in this particular bill, dealing with the courts meeting on Sunday, it is to the discretion of the judge as to whether or not he or she wants to meet?" Ms. Erdoes replied, according to this bill, to meet the time line that meets the Belotti test of the United States Supreme Court, she thinks the judge would have to meet on Sunday, or meet within the time frames that are set there. She said she does not think that this process would begin on a Saturday or Sunday; the minor would go to the court during regular operating hours to initiate the process, and the judge would be meeting within the time frames... Senator Neal interrupted, referring Ms. Erdoes to page 4, line 46. He thereupon asked her if that provision was at the discretion of the judge. Ms. Erdoes answered in the affirmative. Senator Neal said, "So, the judge does not have to meet on the Sunday or holiday if he...does not want to, and we cannot force them to do that." Ms. Erdoes said that provision is discretionary. She explained that is the provision made in the courts section to insure that the court would be able to stay open, because existing language does not require them to be open on that day. She referred the committee to page 3, line 42, which states, "The court shall issue an order on the merits of the petition not later than the end of the calendar day on which the hearing is held." Ms. Erdoes stated she believes because it does say shall, it will require the court to meet on weekends, if necessary. Senator Neal said, "I think you just answered the question that the court does not have to meet on that day, even though we put that language in here. If we do make that requirement...if I understand what you are saying then, Ms. Erdoes, that if the court shall issue [an] order on the merits of the petition no later than the end of the calendar day on which the hearing is held, the calendar day, which could mean any day, correct?" Ms. Erdoes answered in the affirmative. Senator Neal said, "It is up to the court as to whether or not the court want[s] to meet on the weekend." Ms. Erdoes said she believes the time line in the bill is pretty specific as to... Senator Neal interrupted again asking, "Can we direct, as the Legislature, the court to meet on a Saturday or Sunday?" Ms. Erdoes said that kind of direction has been upheld in other states, and does not see anything in the constitution which would prohibit it. Senator Neal requested, "Under our constitution, Ms. Erdoes, can we require the courts to meet on a Saturday or Sunday or holidays?" Ms. Erdoes replied she believes the Legislature can, saying she has found... Senator Neal interrupted again demanding, "The Legislature can do that?" Ms. Erdoes answered in the affirmative. Senator Neal said that was all he wanted to hear Ms. Erdoes say. He stated he wants to make sure it is included in the record. Eileen Roberts, President, Mothers Against Minors Abortions (MAMA), read her written testimony (Exhibit C) to the committee, expressing her support for S.B. 408. Senator Neal told Ms. Roberts, "This bill is considered to be a parental notification bill. With that understanding, what will...what does that mean to you?...parental notification, in this particular instance?" Ms. Roberts replied, "Well, if our state had a parental notification bill, I would have gotten a simple notice or a simple phone call, stating 'Mrs. Roberts, your daughter is considering an abortion, but we are sending her home to you because you are the best counselor for your daughter, and she needs the support of you and your husband, and you help her decide to make such a life and death decision.' The notification of the parent does not require that the girl talk to her parent. It is simply that, notification." Senator Neal asked Ms. Roberts, "That's the way you understand it?" Ms. Roberts answered in the affirmative. Senator Coffin asked Ms. Roberts if she has lived in Nevada for a long time. Ms. Roberts replied she lives in Virginia. Senator Coffin told Ms. Roberts if her rebellious daughter had seen a judge, she would not have found out either. He said that is one of the things people need to remember about this bill. The purpose of this bill is to allow girls to find another way...she still would not have found out, under this legislation. Senator Washington referred Senator Coffin to page 2, section 3, subsection 2, which explains that before a judge makes his decision, evidence must be presented demonstrating the minor is mature enough to make an intelligent, informed decision concerning the abortion; she is financially independent or emancipated; and, the abortion is in her best interest, the court shall, no later than the end of the calendar day, issue an order. He stressed the judge has to make that decision based on certain criteria. Senator Coffin stated the judge, under this bill, is not required to know or check the medical history of the young lady. Chairman Rawson asserted a circumstance could develop where a judge would allow the abortion without notification to the parents. Bill Denny, M.A., M.S.T., Family Counselor, told the committee this bill concerns him because he thinks there are few times in the life a youngster when they need parental involvement more than in a crisis of this nature. He stated few, if any, minor children are prepared to deal with this kind of crisis by themselves. He contended it is the function of parents to interact with their children in these kinds of situations. He said when secrets are kept, the family as a structure, cannot deal with them, and the minor girl is left to handle the pressure on her own. He maintained she needs help and intervention. He said a young girl is often reluctant to tell her parents because she may fear upsetting the family balance which may not be too stable to begin with. Mr. Denny quoted noted author, and innovative family therapist, Virginia Satir, in her book People Making, 1972: "All families are in balance. The question is, however, what is the cost to each family member to maintain that balance." Mr. Denny told the committee he thinks the stakes are high regarding the nature of a family system, and the family is the one place in the world where everyone expects nurturing to take place. He stated the family is obviously the place for learning, nurturing and growing. He said Nevada needs legislation that promotes open family systems where these issues can be discussed openly and freely and families can interact with the child during the crisis. He said he thinks this bill helps to provide for the integration rather than disintegration of the family unit. Mr. Denny stated Ms. Satir goes on to say (23 years ago): Others who may protest, with all the pressures of daily living, there just isn't time for most people to overhaul their family lives. To them I would say, 'We had better find the time. It is a matter of survival.' I consider this our first priority. Troubled families make troubled people, and thus contribute to crime, mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, poverty, alienated youth, political extremism, and many other social problems. If we don't give our best efforts to developing the family and making people who are more truly human, I see our present social problems growing worse and worse, perhaps ending in extinction for us all. Mr. Denny told the committee he sees this bill as a beginning. He suggested if a family has to be notified, even a troubled family, it may precipitate a crisis, but it may be that crisis which would encourage a family to seek help. Senator Neal asked Mr. Denny what parental notification means to him. Mr. Denny replied it simply means that the parents both need to know, and have the right to know, what their children are doing. He suggested the parents can then involve themselves at whatever level they choose, but insisted the child has a need for the parent to know. Senator Neal asked Mr. Denny, "You are saying that parental notification is needed for the parent to know?" Mr. Denny answered, "It is a need for both the parent and the child to be aware of the actions and activities of the minor children." Senator Coffin asked Mr. Denny what type of degree his job as a marriage and family counselor requires. Mr. Denny replied it requires a master's degree and a minimum of 1,500 hours of internship as well as state licensure. Senator Coffin said he thinks family counselors should be involved in this process as they are better qualified to deal with issues of this nature than judges, and he believes a young girl would find it easier to go to a therapist than a judge. Mr. Denny replied they frequently do. Senator Washington asked Mr. Denny if he could give the committee an example of why a minor would not want to tell her parents. Mr. Denny responded: Fear. They are afraid of what is going to happen. Parents sometimes will clearly react. They may be very overreactive. The parents themselves may already be troubled people. They may already be poor parents, as a matter of fact. The minors are afraid...that [it] is going to upset an already fragile balance in the family, and therefore the girl has to keep the secret and carry the pressure by herself, and she is simply not equipped to do that. Senator Washington asked Mr. Denny if a young girl proceeds with an abortion, and keeps it a secret, if that guilt or fear is carried for the rest of her life or until she decides to expose it. Mr. Denny said that is exactly right, and added not only does she carry the pressure of her own behavior, but she carries the pressure of trying to keep the family somehow balanced. Senator Washington asked Mr. Denny if it is his opinion that the minor is better off to tell her parents. Mr. Denny said, "Absolutely. It at least relieves her of the pressure of trying to keep this whole thing intact...that is the kind of crisis that literally drives a family to seek help...that is the kind of condition in which they walk through my doors." Senator Washington asked Mr. Denny if a girl does not tell her parents, and carries that burden through her adult years, and later gets married, if this would carry over into her own family. Mr. Denny replied: Almost always. There is a generational kind of thing that just keeps passing down through the system. Very, very often these people...are married and then they are struggling with their marriage, or they are struggling with various kinds of sexual behavior that they, themselves, are wanting to discontinue, and often they tell me of previous behavior such as this...such as the abortion...that they have never shared with anyone, not even their husbands. So they have carried this pressure by themselves, and they are now, as young adults, seeking help for the very first time. Senator Washington asked Mr. Denny if he believes a minor is capable of making the same decisions as an adult? Mr. Denny said in his opinion they are not. He said this type of decision requires a supportive family system. Ava Marie Sayre, Teenager, testified via videoconference from Las Vegas. She told the committee she is now 19 years old. She testified when she was 15 years old she was pregnant, scared and ashamed, went to an abortion clinic, and in a daze went through the procedure of an abortion. She said she signed the contract, took some Valium, and went into the room, partly naked, before a stranger who she hoped knew what he was doing. She said during the procedure she experienced pain far more severe than the promised description of menstrual cycle pain. She said afterward, they told her to get up and get dressed. She explained she was still feeling drugged by the Valium, so she went into a room where she was given a cookie, orange juice, and birth control pills. Ms. Sayre told the committee she went home and pretended everything was okay. She said she bled for a month after the procedure. She said she was bleeding Jell-O-like blood clots about the size of a fist. She commented she had to go to the bathroom every 5 minutes. She said she called the clinic and described what she was experiencing, but was told it was normal. She subsequently spoke to other nurses who have told her it was not normal. Ms. Sayre said she asked three different nurses at the clinic for instructions on how to take the birth control pills and received three different answers. She stated she was afraid to walk because she feared she would fall down, and decided to quit taking the birth control pills, and the bleeding stopped. Ms. Sayre said she made the decision to have the abortion without consulting her parents because she thought it would cost $10,000 to have a baby. She said she was completely uneducated, and signed the contract with the clinic relieving them of all responsibility for anything that happened to her. She advised she felt helpless and alone, and assured Senator Coffin she is not a rebellious child; in fact, she is a valedictorian, and has been a straight A student since kindergarten, but was just scared. She admitted she made a mistake, and was uneducated to make those decisions. She had no idea what was happening to her, had no idea about pregnancy, and no idea about sex either. She said she decided to tell her parents because she was suicidal, could not sleep or eat, weighed less than 100 pounds, and could not concentrate on her studies because of the abortion. She thinks telling her family brought them closer together. Senator Coffin asked Ms. Sayre how long she has lived in Las Vegas. Ms. Sayre answered, "Nineteen years; all my life." Senator Coffin asked Ms. Sayre if she knows where the courthouse is, and where the judges offices are located. Ms. Sayre replied, "No." Vice Chairman Lowden asked Ms. Sayre how she found out about the clinic where she had her abortion. She further asked how she got to the clinic at 15 years of age. Ms. Sayre said her ex-boyfriend was 18 and knew of the clinic because the people he worked for were pro-life advocates who picketed the clinic. She said he worked extra hours to earn the money for the abortion and took her there and paid for it. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Ms. Sayre how much the abortion cost. Ms. Sayre replied she thinks it was $225. Senator Washington asked Ms. Sayre if she had to do it over again, if she would do anything differently. Ms. Sayre replied she would definitely do things differently. She said she would have kept the baby, and would have gone to her parents, because having a baby is not nearly as expensive as she thought. Senator Washington asked Ms. Sayre if she thinks her parents love her any less now that they know. Ms. Sayre said she thinks they have always loved her the same, but said she really knows now how much they love her. She said she did not know before. Mark Baltazar, Director, Crisis Pregnancy Center, Las Vegas, Nevada, told the committee he is single, and has no children, is a sociology major at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and will graduate next year. He stated he is appearing before the committee on his own behalf. He explained he worked at the Crisis Pregnancy Center for over 4 years, starting as a counselor, counseling young women similar to Ms. Sayre. He said it is not uncommon for the counselors to work with young women who are fearful of their parent's response. He said he assured those he counseled that if they opened up to their families, they would find out that their families do love them and are there to support them regardless of their choice. He said in his experience parents do care and have the best interests of their children at heart, and want to help and support them. He insisted our society is building ever-increasing walls between parents and children, and believes this bill will help break down some of those walls. He concluded this bill allows the time necessary for the child to think about what she is going to do, and then consider discussing it with her parents. He urged the committee to support the passage of S.B. 408. Matthew Barulich, M.D., Board Certified Obstetrician Gynecologist, read from prepared written testimony (Exhibit D) expressing his support for S.B. 408. Senator Neal asked Dr. Barulich, "Is there any time in which parental notification should not be given by a minor?" Dr. Barulich replied, "In certain situations of emergency when there is not time to notify the parents for the best interests of the patient." Senator Neal asked Dr. Barulich, "What about incest?" Dr. Barulich replied that occurs very infrequently in terms of abortion, and in that setting, it is still in the best interest of the family... Senator Neal interrupted asking, "If a child became impregnated by an incest[uous] relationship, and that child wanted to get an abortion, do you think that that child should have the parents notified in that particular case?" Dr. Barulich replied, "In that setting, I personally, as a physician, would say that it would be in the best interests of the patient for the parents to know." Senator Neal asked Dr. Barulich, "Even if the child might be harmed in that situation?" Dr. Barulich said it comes back to the same issue as Mr. Denny was saying... Senator Neal interrupted, saying, "Doctor, you and I both know that incestual relationship[s are] not taken kindly by the public, and that whenever these relationships occur, they are not out in the public, it is kind of a secret relationship. Is it your testimony to this committee that a child would not be put at risk if that parent should be notified?" Dr. Barulich asked, "Are you saying in terms of harm, physically?" Senator Neal responded, "Oh, yes! That is what we are talking about." Dr. Barulich asked if there is a provision in this law for... Senator Neal interjected, "No! It is just straight notification, whether incestual or what, you know." Dr. Barulich reiterated his previous answer to the question, and added that there is a judicial bypass. Senator Neal said, "Judicial bypass, sir, is when the judge refused to grant notification, I mean grant abortion, you know, for the child." Chairman Rawson stated Senator Neal is incorrect. Senator Neal asked Chairman Rawson, "What is incorrect? Judicial bypass only takes place when the judge refuse[s] to grant the child the right to have the abortion!" Senator Washington concurred with Chairman Rawson, saying, "That is incorrect. It takes place when the child decides that she does not want to tell her parents, or...[have her] parents notified, then she opts to have the judicial bypass." Senator Neal asked Senator Washington to point that section out to him. While Senator Washington was researching the citation, Chairman Rawson said, in answer to Senator Coffin's question regarding judicial bypass, there are 25 states which have judicial bypass and 21 states where parental notification is required. He added, of those 21 states, 14 have elected judges at the district level, and 13 have judges elected at the appellate level. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Dr. Barulich if he is familiar with the outlying areas of Carson City. Dr. Barulich answered in the affirmative. Vice Chairman Lowden told Dr. Barulich she is curious, knowing the nature of his area and more rural areas, if he thinks that young women in those areas are not as comfortable going to a judge. She said in some rural areas it takes an hour to get to a courthouse, and she is concerned that perhaps the young women would seek an illegal method or a nonsurgical sterile method of abortion rather than go through the procedures required by this bill. Dr. Barulich said he cannot comment as to the numbers of illegal abortions peripherally, but would say that the system of allowing people to come to the centers where abortions take place works very well here. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Dr. Barulich how many clinics there are in the Carson City area and rural surrounds. Dr. Barulich said he does not have any exact numbers. He said Carson City has a well functioning clinic. Dr. Barulich asked Vice Chairman Lowden to clarify what she means by clinics. Vice Chairman Lowden said she meant a place where someone can get an abortion. Senator Washington told Senator Neal the information he requested is located in subsection 3, paragraph 2, page 2. He explained that in lieu of notifying her parents, the minor can seek a judicial bypass. Chairman Rawson asked Senator Washington if he was saying that the minor has access to the court. Senator Washington answered in the affirmative. Senator Neal stated, "That was not the question. The question is whether or not the pregnancy was the result of incest, whether or not the law, or this particular bill, would exempt that person from these particular arrangements, if the judge so required, that the person be notified in this particular case, or the doctor in this particular case, to notify the parents, you see." Chairman Rawson said in his interpretation of the bill, he is not sure that incest exempts anything. He said he thinks the judge has to stand muster for that if he forces the young woman back into the home. Claudia Catani, Citizen Activist, testified from Las Vegas. She told the committee the question of parental notification brought to the Nevada Legislature in 1993 was not resolved. She testified, recognizing the need to protect our teen and preteen daughters' mental and physical health, the Senate Committee [on Human Resources and Facilities] passed a bill out of committee which would have required minors to notify at least one parent in order to obtain an abortion, but the bill was burdened with amendments and was never voted on by the entire Senate body. She said, as a result, girls as young as 12 years old who are pregnant and afraid are making life altering, and often life threatening, decisions without the benefit of parental advice, love or support. She insisted no one should expect children under these extreme circumstances to make rational decisions independently. She said daughters and sons who are faced with a crisis pregnancy may discover by confiding in a parent, they are not alone; someone does care and love them; and, at times other solutions may be offered which might be overlooked if they were not directed by law to involve their parents. She declared abortion is the only medical decision a child is permitted to make without their parents' knowledge. She insisted it is not a small decision. She pointed out the committee is not here to resolve the issue of abortion; it is here to decide whether a minor, 16 years old or younger, should be required to notify at least one parent before seeking an abortion. She said, obviously from past experience, it is clear the legislators did not want to be forced to make that decision, and this bill offers the best possible solution to the problem. She stated the people of Nevada must decide for themselves. She insisted it is the committee's responsibility, as Nevada state Senators, to be the voice of the people, but added there are times when the people must speak for themselves; this is one of those times. She testified the cost is less than $6,000 to put this question on the ballot and asserted it is a small price to pay to resolve this dilemma once and for all. She said the sooner this is done, the sooner we will ensure our children the protection they deserve. She maintained regardless of one's position, whether it be pro-life or pro-choice, we must all be concerned with the health and welfare of our teen and preteen children. She said each of the committee members has the responsibility to pass S.B. 408, thereby leaving this issue in the hands of the people. She insisted the entire Legislature, having failed to make a decision in the past, has an irrefutable obligation to allow the people to speak their own minds by way of a ballot question. She implored the committee not to stifle that right. Ms. Catani told Senator Coffin there seems to be a concern about whether or not minors would be able to find a judge, or seek out the judicial bypass available to them. She expressed her certainty the abortion clinics will have that information and make it readily available to the young girls if they seek out the clinic without the required parental notification. She said the incidence of incest and child abuse that may exist within a home should be brought to light so help can be sought for the family, and protection provided for the minor. Tim Post, Attorney, testified before the committee in Carson City. He advised he has been practicing law in Reno for 15 years, and handles Rutherford Institute cases for Nevada on a pro bono basis for people whose constitutional rights are being infringed. He said he was asked to talk about the legal ramifications which have been argued throughout the country from the Supreme Court on down. He feels this particular bill, concerning legal ramifications, has no problems; it passes constitutional muster; it does not infringe on what was known as Proposition 7. He stated the Supreme Court and circuit court decisions have determined the states are not necessarily attacking Roe v. Wade but are regulating legitimate state interests, namely the health profession in each state. He told the committee the notification statute in Nevada was on the books prior to Proposition 7. He said he considers notification, in this context, to be synonymous with least burdensome. He stated there are no less than two recent Supreme Court decisions which say consent is constitutional. He maintained the proposed statute is way below that strict definition. He stated this bill is wonderful in the case of incest; the mother could be notified as this bill only requires the notification of one parent. He insisted every district attorney's office in the state of Nevada would like to know about any incestuous relationship, and added no one can protect that minor better than a judge. He explained an attorney and a guardian ad litem would be appointed for the minor. He said S.B. 408 not only reflects the necessary sensitivity for the young girl, but the provisions of: confidentiality, pre- counsel, expedited procedure, judicial bypass, lower burden of proof, ex parte, and non-adversarial, all of which satisfy the dictates of minimum due process. He said we are not infringing on Roe v. Wade, but pointed out the most recent case of Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey says Roe v. Wade is still intact. He insisted Roe v. Wade says a woman has a right to decide; to terminate a pregnancy is her liberty. He stated it also says the attainment of viability is still critical, but the state has a legitimate interest at the onset of pregnancy to protect the health of the woman and the life of the fetus. He said that is why these statutes are constitutional. He concluded this bill deals with parental notification rather than parental consent and, therefore, is the least burdensome law this state can pass. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Mr. Post if an amendment that extended the judicial bypass to include a priest, minister, rabbi, or clergy, would hold up constitutionally, in his legal opinion. Mr. Post answered in the affirmative. He added, that does not promote a religion, and is thereby religion-neutral on its face, especially if it allows the person to choose, and the state does not endorse a particular religion, there would not be a problem relative to the separation of church and state. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Mr. Post, if the amendment provided for a choice between a judge or a clergyman, would it be okay. She further asked Mr. Post, if the amendment included someone like Mr. Denny, who is a family therapist, or counselor, would that hold up. Mr. Post answered in the affirmative. Vice Chairman Lowden asked, "Even though counselor is not defined in statute?" Mr. Post said, "No, it doesn't need to be. Your key safety net here is the judicial bypass provision. We have state judges that are great; they do their job very conscientiously and this bill, as it stands right now, is one trip cord after another, protecting Roe v. Wade type rights. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Post whether a minister could be a substitute for the judicial bypass. Mr. Post replied he does not know. He surmised he may have misunderstood the question. He asked Vice Chairman Lowden if she meant replace judge with minister. Vice Chairman Lowden answered in the affirmative. Mr. Post said he would have to see the amendment because it is too amorphous. Chairman Rawson said it seems to him there might be a burden there and it would be difficult for a young woman to get anything but one result. He said he thinks with a minister there may be limitations to the rights of the young girl. Mr. Post replied he thought Vice Chairman Lowden meant inserting a minister somewhere in the lineup, but still provided for a judicial bypass. Vice Chairman Lowden stated she was speaking of a counselor or therapist in lieu of a judge. She said the committee needs to know if that will hold up in court, or if it will be bogged down for 2 years fighting that issue. Mr. Post said, "Yes, you would [be bogged down]. [The committee] would have to analyze Ashcroft, Danforth, Bellotti, Akron, Casey; all the Supreme Court cases on point." Senator Neal asked Mr. Post if the constitution of the United States guarantees the freedom of religion. Mr. Post responded, "Yes. The First Amendment." Senator Neal asked, "Would it not be an infringement upon that particular right if a law was put in the book to require one to seek a clergy for advice?" Mr. Post answered, "That is why I told Senator Lowden if it is voluntary..." Senator Neal interrupted saying, "This is a different question, you see, this is a different question, this is about advice requiring one...it doesn't say what religion, but to require one, by law, to seek advice from a clergy. Would that not impinge upon the constitutional right of freedom of religion?" Mr. Post replied: If it says you must go talk to a clergyman, I would have some problems with that, but if it says talk to someone other than the abortionist, I would prefer that, but you cannot replace judicial bypass with clerical bypass. We do not have that in the state. You do not appeal to the Supreme Court from a priest's decision. So that is why I would like to see the format that is set up, and I naturally thought you were inserting it, but I think you still might have to have your judicial bypass, and it should be expedient. Senator Neal said, "Now, you have spoken to the bill, as meeting certain criteria of court decisions that [have] already been ruled upon, Roe v. Wade and I think Bellotti. Is it not also true, aside from those decisions, is it not possible or probable to have a law to be declared unconstitutional because of vagueness?" Mr. Post answered, "Yes, you could have one [declared unconstitutional] for vagueness." Senator Neal asked Mr. Post if he has examined S.B. 408 for vagueness. Mr. Post answered, "No. This bill has it all and more. This bill is very safe. This bill would pass constitutional muster right now easily." Senator Neal said, "Let me just ask you the question about the judge meeting on the weekend. We make it discretionary. We make it discretionary that the judge should meet, but if the judge, he or she, decide[s] not to, is this her discretion? Does that not add some vagueness to this." Mr. Post answered, "No." Senator Neal asked, "Why not?" Mr. Post replied, "While this bill does not say a judge has to meet on weekends..." Senator Neal interrupted saying, "That's what I said! That's the point! But you see I'm talking about the procedure which is laid out in the bill, in which the judge is to make a decision, and if that decision should happen to fall on the weekend...you understand where I'm coming [from]?" Mr. Post said, "Yes, but practically speaking, how is the minor woman to get hold of the judge on the weekend? She will contact him on a Monday through Friday when he is available." Senator Neal said, "Okay. I rest my case." Vice Chairman Lowden said, "Mr. Post, if we could continue with our dialog a little bit, the bill is saying in notification, so if we are talking about just notifying, say a clergy, not receiving necessarily permission, but notifying...that is all the bill is saying. Would that hold up, even if that clergy is saying 'No, I don't think so...you are not going to do this'?" Mr. Post asked, "When you are saying notifying your clergy, are you treating the clergy as the parent in this bill." Vice Chairman Lowden answered, "Yes. Well it is not in the bill, but I'm told this is going to come up as an amendment if this bill passes out of this committee, someone is going to suggest that a clergy be another option, so imagine it being in the bill." Mr. Post asked, "You mean an option other than a judge?" Vice Chairman Lowden said, "Other than a judge, other than a parent, yes, the clergy would be equal to either of those." Mr. Post asked, "You are saying replace parent or replace judge with clergy." Vice Chairman Lowden answered in the affirmative. Mr. Post said, "Boy, that is a tough...shoot from the hip type answer, and I would really have to see that. I would probably have some difficulty with that if you are replacing the judge because the whole progeny of cases in this area from the Supreme Court talk about judicial bypass, so you would have to accommodate...I would like to see the way that is written." Chairman Rawson said he suspects there are some committee members that have trouble with that too. Senator Coffin said he thinks that if we put this on a ballot, whatever the people of Nevada decide, will stand the test of constitutionality. He said he thinks the bill goes a long way toward addressing the problems contained in the 1993 legislation. He said this legislation will be enacted by a vote of the people. Mr. Post said the first amendment established the freedom of religion and says Congress will not establish a religion, but one also has a right to free exercise of religious beliefs. He added there could be an argument that if the state does not allow the minor to seek the clergy of her choice, it is thereby infringing on her First Amendment rights. Chairman Rawson ruled that the committee will address the amendment when it comes before it. The next witness to testify did so via speakerphone in order to protect her identity due to her age and the nature of her testimony. She will be identified as Miss "X" for the purpose of the record. She told the committee she is 15 years old and that she had an abortion 2 months ago without her parents' consent. She explained that she and her boyfriend had been going together for 1 year. She stated she made the mistake of getting into a sexual relationship at her age, and even though they used condoms, she got pregnant. She said when she suspected she was pregnant, she and her boyfriend went to someone they knew who told them where to go to find out for sure if she was pregnant. She said they confirmed the fact that she was pregnant, and the people at the clinic gave her the information about the abortion clinic, and informed her she could get an abortion without her parents' knowledge. She said she felt she would just get the abortion and it would be all over, and she would forget it, and get on with her life. She told the committee that was not the case. She stated the abortion is the first thing she thinks about when she gets up, and the last thing she thinks about when she goes to bed, not to mention all the times during the day when it comes to her mind. She said she now knows, it is something she will never forget. She commented she knows there are a lot of people against her, but said they obviously have never been through this traumatizing experience, or would understand what she is talking about. Miss "X" said her second mistake was not telling her parents about her pregnancy. She said she now knows her parents would have helped her make a decision, and stood behind her no matter what. She insisted all parents need to know what can happen to their children. She said her parents do not even let her date, but she still got pregnant. She said during the abortion procedure, all she could think about was wanting her Mommy with her. She said she knows that sounds stupid coming from a 15-year old, but it is true. She said she and her mom are very close and she made a very big mistake by not telling her. She said the doctor also made a lot of mistakes. She asserted the papers she read beforehand stated that she would have to stay in the recovery room for at least 30 minutes, but her boyfriend timed it and said it was only approximately 15 minutes. She said the only explanation given was she was one of the last patients of the day, and the office staff wanted to go home. She told the committee she now realizes what a big responsibility it is, and how dangerous it can be. She said she did not realize that until her mother, who is in the medical field, explained it to her. She remarked if someone has to explain a medical procedure to you after the fact, you obviously have no idea what you are doing. She insisted because of her mother's watchful eye and concern for her, she found out before Miss "X" even left the clinic. She told the committee she knows now, she did not only hurt herself, but hurt her whole family very deeply. She maintained she does not care how the opponents of parental consent feel, because they have no idea how emotionally stressful and hurtful it can be for a young teen to make that decision and follow through with it alone. She said it does not matter if your boyfriend or a friend is there, they do not love you like your parents do. She said she is testifying in the hope that this bill passes and saves other young girls from going through an abortion without the love and support of their parents. She testified there will never be a day in her life that she does not think about the baby's face that she will never see. Mrs. "Y" also testified to the committee via speaker phone to protect the identity of her daughter, Miss "X". She told the committee she will explain how the abortion affected their family, but cannot convey the deep hurt and grief their family experiences. She said it has caused so much emotional turmoil and pain, which, in turn, has caused a great deal of conflict within their family. She said she and her husband not only love their daughter very much, they also love her boyfriend. She said he has become like the son they never had, which is why they are so hurt and disappointed in them for getting involved sexually, and then going to get an abortion without their knowledge and consent. She said her main concern about minors getting abortions without parental consent is the possibility of health risks. She said her daughter, at 15, would have no idea whether she was allergic to the drug they administer prior to the abortion, or antibiotics or other drugs they are given to take afterwards, not to mention if she had any bleeding complications with surgical procedures. She said it is ludicrous that a 15-year old can sign to have an abortion which is a surgical procedure without parental consent, but requires parental consent to be given aspirin at school. She said people say these girls must have access to abortion without consent or they will turn to suicide, illegal clinics, or try to abort themselves. She said in some cases that is probably true, but making them get consent may save many others so much sorrow and grief. She said they were lucky that their daughter suffered no physical complications from the abortion, but mentally she and her family are all emotionally affected. She urged the committee to help parents get back their rights by passing this bill. Chairman Rawson advised Mrs. "Y" that this bill would not require parental consent, it would only require notification. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Miss "X" if the clinic asked what she was allergic to, and if she signed a waiver relieving the clinic and doctor of liability. Miss "X" said she read through the papers, but did not know what she was allergic to. She said the clinic did not tell her, until they were giving her the drug, what it was, so she would not have known. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Miss "X" if she signed a paper saying she did know? Miss "X" answered in the affirmative. Vice Chairman Lowden queried, "So, you lied on the affidavit, or whatever you signed?" Miss "X" replied, "I didn't know if I...they didn't tell me what kind of drugs they were putting in me to make me drugged so I wouldn't feel it until they were putting it inside my arm. They had me sign a paper saying 'do you realize you are going to be drugged'?" Chairman Rawson asked Miss "X" if the clinic described any potential complications to her. Miss "X" said they told her what to do if she started bleeding, but they did not tell her about the complications under the anesthesia, or that the pills could cause an allergic reaction. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Miss "X" how she found out about the clinic, and how much the abortion cost. Miss "X" said it cost $320 and the place where she got the pregnancy test told her about the clinic. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Miss "X" the name of the place that performed the pregnancy test. Miss "X" replied a friend at school told her about the place to get a pregnancy test. Chairman Rawson announced the proponents' time had expired and said the committee will now hear testimony of the opponents. Edwina Prior read her prepared written testimony (Exhibit E) expressing her opposition to the bill. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Mrs. Prior when she is asked questions if she is going to speak for Lt. Governor Wagner, or if she will be speaking for herself. Ms. Prior replied she will speak for herself. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Mrs. Prior if she agrees with Ms. Wagner's statements. Ms. Prior answered in the affirmative. Vice Chairman Lowden asked why Ms. Prior would not want, once and for all, to put this issue on the ballot and let the people decide. Ms. Prior said this bill addresses whether or not this should be a government matter. She said she just thinks this is one more example of government invading our personal lives, and thinks it is unnecessary bureaucracy. Vice Chairman Lowden said she could not agree more as far as government is concerned, but said she is asking the bigger question which does address this issue: putting this issue on the ballot once and for all, and getting rid of it as far as government is concerned in this legislative body. Ms. Prior said she does not think any other people have the right to vote on what her personal relationship with her family should be. Jeffrey Wrightson, M.D., Obstetrics and Gynecology, testified from Las Vegas, stating he is Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Nevada School of Medicine. He told the committee he is also a fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and of the American College of Surgeons. He said he is testifying in opposition to S.B. 408. He suggested the debate on this issue does not involve the ethical concern surrounding abortion as was previously stated. He said the legality of abortion has already been strongly established in Nevada numerous times. He said the issue here today is whether or not to put the emotional needs of parents and the will of the state to protect the family unit, even if dysfunctional, over the medical interest of the minor patient. He said the proposal in front of the committee today puts the health of the minor at risk in several ways. First, the mechanism of judicial bypass can result in delays which have significant implications. He submitted data compiled in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), in 1992 (Exhibit F) citing statistics regarding the risk of death from legal abortion in the United States. Dr. Wrightson stated although he strongly feels that privacy in matters of health care is essential for minors as well as adults, this is not his opinion alone. He said there is nationwide support for these concepts. He asserted physician papers from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the American Medical Association Council on Ethics and Judicial Affairs oppose unnecessary regulations that limit or delay legal access to care for abortions. He maintained despite the above opinions, a number of states have enacted parental notification statutes, and the data available from those states indicates several things. He told the committee an increase in teenage pregnancy occurs, but there is no change in parental notification with those who choose abortion. Dr. Wrightson pointed out the consistent end result is a dangerous delay in the timing of the termination and increased cost not only to the minor, but also increased cost and burden on the judicial system. He said it was previously stated that in Minnesota first trimester abortions decreased after the enactment of parental notification; what was not mentioned was that second trimester terminations increased by 18 percent. He said he sincerely wishes that all pregnant teens will feel that they can confide in one or both of their parents for support and counsel, and data shows that most of them do, but we must not ignore the ethical rights of those who, for whatever reason, cannot obtain parental consent. He concluded the doctor/patient relationship is a source of unbiased confidential counsel that should not be delegated to the courts in this situation. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Dr. Wrightson if he has the statistics for the states that he talked about, and asked where the statistics came from. Dr. Wrightson said he would provide the committee with that information. Senator Washington asked Dr. Wrightson, excluding the medical procedure for abortion, if he has to get consent from a parent before he performs any other medical procedure, or administer medication to a minor. Dr. Wrightson said he does, but added he does not think that is the issue today. Senator Washington said, to the contrary, he thinks that is precisely the issue. He said the committee is trying to establish a consistent policy throughout the statutes on notification of parents concerning any type of medical procedure. He asked Dr. Wrightson if he would agree that consistency is necessary. Dr. Wrightson replied, the issue here is whether or not judicial bypass is an acceptable replacement for parental notification, and that is what he is testifying against. Senator Washington told Dr. Wrightson, in lieu of parental notification, and in an effort to make this statute constitutional, the Supreme Court has decided that the judicial bypass must be included in the statute. He stated the committee is trying to comply with the Supreme Court requirements. Senator Washington asked Dr. Wrightson, "Would you not agree that any type of medical procedure [except] an abortion, you still need the parents' consent or at least their notification?" Dr. Wrightson answered, "You make an attempt to obtain their consent for most procedures." Pat Elzy, Associate Director, Planned Parenthood of Northern Nevada, testified from prepared written testimony (Exhibit G) expressing Planned Parenthood's opposition to S.B. 408. Vice Chairman Lowden questioned, "Ms. Elzy, you said that 61 percent of minors inform parents before abortions. Was that [information] also [obtained] from the American Journal of Public Health?" Ms. Elzy replied, "That was from the purple sheet that I have given you from Parent Involvement in Minors' Abortion Decisions, Family Planning Perspectives, Henshaw & Kost, 24:5, 9, 10/92, p. 196." Vice Chairman Lowden asked Ms. Elzy if she knows which states have implemented a parental notification law. She commented there are figures which show that young women go to a bordering state if the neighboring state's laws are less restrictive. She further asked Ms. Elzy if she agrees with that? Ms. Elzy replied that has been shown to be true. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Ms. Elzy if there are any numbers indicating there is an increase in illegal abortions. Ms. Elzy responded it is hard to monitor illegal abortions, but stated there have been illegal abortions; that is what happened with Becky Bell. Vice Chairman Lowden insisted, since Ms. Elzy is involved with Planned Parenthood, she should have some sort of a feel for that. Ms. Elzy replied Planned Parenthood does not have a hotline indicating where illegal abortions are performed. She said Planned Parenthood encourages the continuance of safe, legal abortions so that women do not have to be faced with seeking illegal abortions. Vice Chairman Lowden said she is aware of that and agrees, but stated children are the issue here, and she wonders whether Ms. Elzy has any figures on illegal abortions since she has statistics on minors leaving their home states to seek abortions elsewhere. Ms. Elzy reiterated she has no information regarding illegal abortions. Chairman Rawson stated there is one rural clinic which will perform abortions in Elko, and added there is a physician and a hospital there as well. He said the rural areas have a shortage of health care whether for abortion, delivery or other things. Senator Washington told the committee that the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau provided the committee with statistics from the state of Kansas (Exhibit H) which currently has single parent notification statutes. He said statistics from the surrounding states of Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma indicate that the number of minors seeking abortions outside the state of Kansas have not gone up significantly. Senator Washington asked Ms. Elzy at what age Planned Parenthood determines a minor is a woman. Ms. Elzy replied, "A minor by state statute, is under the age of 18, correct?" Senator Washington answered in the affirmative. Ms. Elzy told the committee Planned Parenthood provides adolescent counseling for anyone under the age of 18 years who requests medical services. Senator Washington asked Ms. Elzy if she considers anyone under the age of 18 years to be a minor. Ms. Elzy replied, "By state law, yes." Senator Washington said, "So, therefore, when we are considering the woman's right to choose, anybody that is over 18 would still have that choice, correct?" Ms. Elzy answered, "Correct. We believe that all women, with their support systems, must make decisions that are right for them." Senator Washington asked Ms. Elzy, "Those support systems being?" Ms. Elzy responded, "Those support systems could be their family, their clergy, their school counselor, [or] their physician. These are personal, private decisions." Senator Washington asked Ms. Elzy how she would prioritize those support systems. Ms. Elzy replied that has to be up to the individual. Senator Washington told Ms. Elzy he is asking for her personal opinion. Ms. Elzy responded, "It depends on the situation. If it is a caring and open trusting relationship, the priority may be a parent. If it is a caring and open relationship and the young woman does not want to disappoint her parent, she might go to an aunt or she might go to her minister or school counselor. I cannot answer a hypothetical question like that. It is really up to the individual." Senator Washington asked Ms. Elzy if she would agree that perhaps individuals have priorities set in their own lives, as far as who they will or will not notify. Ms. Elzy replied she believes it is an individual choice. She said they do know that if there are parental notification laws, that does not necessarily mean that a woman will go to her parents and talk to them. She suggested the woman may go elsewhere. Senator Washington commented, Ms. Elzy once again indicated "woman," and asked her if "woman" indicates someone is over 18 years old. Ms. Elzy replied the young "woman" Senator Washington is talking about in this instance is not over 18 years old and asked him if that is what this is all about. Senator Washington replied, "It is about a minor." Senator Washington told Ms. Elzy the Legislature during this session has considered laws dealing with minors, their participation in crime, and holding their families responsible for the crimes they perpetrate against the community. He then asked Ms. Elzy if a crime was committed against her by a minor if she would want the parent of that minor notified of the crime. Ms. Elzy replied she thinks that is a comparison of apples to oranges. Senator Washington reiterated his question. Ms. Elzy replied, "Depends, yes, I probably would." Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Elzy if she would, in general terms, agree that the parent ought to have the right to make a decision for medical treatment, but in the area of reproductive rights, there may be some overriding concerns that would supersede... Ms. Elzy interrupted saying, "Nevada law already acknowledges the need for minor confidentiality in sensitive medical areas, as in NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] 129.030, 129.050, and 129.060. No parent notice is required for prenatal care, for delivery, for [Caesarian]-sections in delivery, for adoption..." Chairman Rawson told Ms. Elzy he is not trying to be argumentative but is trying to construct something that can assist him in making a decision. He stated he is trying to make sure he understands her position. He said it seems that she generally agrees that parents should be involved in medical decisions, but thinks there are overriding concerns regarding reproductive rights. Ms. Elzy said, ideally, parents should be involved, but thinks there are some exceptions, as depicted in the cited statutes. Ms. Elzy told the committee she wanted to address one of Dr. Wrightson's questions. She said he indicated, in Missouri, between 1980 and 1988, second trimester abortions for teens increased by 36 percent. She said she believes that a note for that is under Hodgkins v. Minnesota (Exhibit I). Senator Coffin asked Ms. Elzy to list the citations for the medical procedures which do not require parental notification. Ms. Elzy replied, "Prenatal care, delivery of pregnancy, Caesarian section, adoption, sexually transmitted infections, substance abuse, mental care, and medical treatment for a minor's child, require no parental consent." Chairman Rawson explained a minor who has a child is considered emancipated. Senator Coffin asked Chairman Rawson when they become emancipated. Chairman Rawson answered, "When they have a child." Senator Coffin asked Chairman Rawson, "At the moment of birth?" Chairman Rawson said that is one test of emancipation, likewise, if the minor can support herself or himself. He said there are a number of things in the law that determine emancipation. Keith J. Tierney, Attorney, testified from Las Vegas where he read his written testimony (Exhibit J) to the committee. He urged the committee to vote no on S.B. 408. Chairman Rawson told Mr. Tierney, in quoting the case Sisson v. Sisson, he missed the point of what Mr. Tierney said would be unconstitutional. Mr. Tierney responded, saying the three cases he cited which address the issue of when, if at all, under our constitution, the Nevada Supreme Court can be a trial court. He said all three cases held it cannot. He said S.B. 408 provides that the Supreme Court will become a trial court. Senator Augustine told Mr. Tierney she takes exception to one statement he made regarding teenagers and pregnancy. She said there are children 10, 11, and 12 years old that are becoming pregnant, and she is not convinced that they are mature enough to make a decision to have an abortion without their parents. Mr. Tierney told Senator Augustine that he will provide the committee with a paper that compared 13 to 20 year old women. He maintained when they were all informed, it showed there was no statistical difference between the ability of a 13 year old and a 21 year old to make that decision. He said the key is, "informed." Senator Augustine reiterated she is not talking about teenagers. She said the committee has statistics on pregnancies of minors in the state of Nevada that show that there are 10, 11 and 12 year olds who are getting pregnant. Senator Coffin stated it is going to be difficult for anyone to understand how to access the system, according to Mr. Tierney's testimony. He said he would like to have the legal counsel of the Legislative Counsel Bureau examine Mr. Tierney's statement, and render an opinion as to whether or not these are arguable or if there are grounds for accepting some of his arguments. He said he particularly wants to research the issue on the Supreme Court being ordered to become a trial court. He said he has read the bill a few times, and keeps missing things because he, like Mr. Tierney, did not see where the fees are waived in the bill. Senator Neal asked Mr. Tierney, regarding the problem with the Supreme Court, "Are we not looking at that particular section of the law which requires a de novo hearing...before the Supreme Court, which in essence is a trial?" Mr. Tierney replied, "That is correct, senator. The statute uses the Latin phrase de novo, meaning of new; it is a new proceeding and that particular aspect was addressed by the three Nevada Supreme Court cases which go back to 1883, and have found that that is unconstitutional." Senator Neal stated, "That would almost require the constitution to change in order to entertain that particular provision, would it not?" Mr. Tierney replied, "That is correct, senator." Vice Chairman Lowden referred to Mr. Tierney's testimony where he said a yes vote by the committee would burden the courts, increase bureaucracy and perhaps increase taxes. She stated there is no question that is a possibility. She explained that is why this issue is going on the ballot to let the voters in Nevada decide whether or not they want it. She said she is not so sure which way this will go if it is placed on the ballot, but wonders why anyone would want to deny the public the right to decide something of this import. Mr. Tierney told Vice Chairman Lowden the voting public of the State of Nevada already voted on this issue, in referendum number 7, a number of years ago. He said what the question should be is whether the public should pay for another vote that will cost the taxpayers more money to do again what was already done years ago. Vice Chairman Lowden expressed her disagreement with Mr. Tierney. She told him the public did not vote on parental notification by minors. Mr. Tierney said he believes the question has been put forth, and the public response was "leave the law alone." He suggested S.B. 408 is asking to change the law. Senator Neal asked Mr. Tierney: This particular proposal is being placed on the ballot using the authority of article 4, subsection 1, of the constitution, which states that the powers of the Legislature [are] vested in the Senate and the Assembly, and I have some question about this, and maybe you can help me because you seem to have looked at this particular issue from the standpoint of its constitutionality, and I have some question as to whether or not this particular Legislature can grant that particular authority without going to article 19 and dealing with those particular sections that speak to referendums and initiatives which are the people form of placing these particular issues on the ballot. The question then becomes...if we go forward and allow this issue to go to the people, that the people would not in essence be passing anything, but would be giving an opinion as to whether or not they want this to be passed, and the Legislature in the next session could come back and undo it all...could really just rewrite the whole...law. As I understand this particular measure...have you looked at this from this particular standpoint...and I guess I am looking for somebody to kind of verify this, and this is my own reading, you know, of the constitution as it relates to this particular bill. Chairman Rawson told Senator Neal he does not believe that this bill is calling for a constitutional amendment. Senator Neal retorted, "I didn't say that it was asking for a constitutional amendment, Mr. chairman! The point that I am making is that this bill is being placed before the people under the authority of article 4, section 1 of the Constitution!" Chairman Rawson told Senator Neal his question was, that once this was determined, could the Legislature come in and change that? He said he does not believe it is a constitutional amendment, and the Legislature could change it in the future. He further stated, on the issue of the article that he is asking about, he believes that Senator Washington has a legal opinion from the Legislative Counsel Bureau, and he will... Senator Neal interrupted, saying, "What I was asking the gentleman up here...I wasn't necessarily asking Mr. Washington. My question was referred to Mr. Tierney if he could, you know, shed some light on this. I know how opinions are gotten around here, opinions are gotten based upon what you ask for." Mr. Tierney told the committee there appears to be an unconstitutional delegation of authority from the Legislature to the public under Nevada's Constitution. Sonia Hem, Representative, University of Nevada, Reno, Women's Political Action Network, presented her testimony (Exhibit K) to the committee in Carson City. Chairman Rawson told Ms. Hem that whatever age the committee places in the bill there will be people who argue. He said it seems to him clear cut that a person of 18 years of age can make the decision to have an abortion. He said he thinks a 17 year old can also probably make that decision, but believes a 10 year old should not make that decision. He said he does not know where the breaking point should be, and is wondering if Ms. Hem has given any thought to that. He asked Ms. Hem if there is a certain point where she thinks a young woman should not make that decision alone. Ms. Hem replied she has never known any 10 year olds to become pregnant in her personal experience. She said she does not know what their maturity level would be. Chairman Rawson said he does not think there is a definite line. Buffy Martin, Representative, University of Nevada, Reno, Women's Political Action Network, testified before the committee in Carson City. She stated before living in Nevada, she lived in the state of Idaho where there are very restrictive abortion policies. She said she lived in a rural area of Twin Falls, Idaho, where there was no safe, legal access to abortion. She said, consequently, she no longer has a friend, who died as a result of an illegal abortion because she could not tell her parents because she felt very ashamed. Ms. Martin said the only thing at issue here is restrictive laws against abortion, not family values. She told the committee she personally has a very good relationship with both of her parents, but assured the committee that if she had been pregnant at 15 or 16, she could not have told her parents due to shame. She testified her parents come from a very liberal background, and her father worked for Planned Parenthood of Northern Nevada, but, due to shame, there is no way she would have told her parents. She suggested this law will cause others to suffer the same fate as Becky Bell and her [Ms. Martin's] deceased friend. She said she agrees with the other opponents of this bill who feel this issue was decided by Proposition 7. She said, regardless of testimony to the contrary, this is an abortion issue. She said she works in the Nevada legal community, and knows personally how complicated the system is and how difficult it is to go before a judge. She told the committee she counsels people who have to go before a judge. She said she knows trial attorneys who are terrified to go before a judge and cannot think of a single 16- year old woman who would feel comfortable going to a judge and explaining a situation which she cannot talk to her parents about. She insisted it is up to every single young woman to make her own decision. She contended this issue cannot be legislated. She begged the committee not to pass this bill, because women may consequently lose their lives as a result. Senator Washington asked Ms. Martin what type of counselor she is. Ms. Martin said she works at a legal firm where she deals with clients who, with the aid of an attorney, go before a judge. Senator Washington asked Ms. Martin, in light of the testimony from the two young ladies, if they had come to her and asked for counseling regarding notifying their parents, how she would have counseled them. He further asked Ms. Martin if she believes they should have notified their parents. Ms. Martin replied she does not deal with abortion seeking clients in her current employment. Vice Chairman Lowden asked Ms. Martin and Ms. Hem why they would not want to have a dialog over the next year and then let the people decide. Ms Hem replied: As was mentioned earlier, when we voted on Question 7, I thought that was pretty cut and dried. Obviously, it wasn't. So, in that case, it appears to me that we elected the state Senators to decide things for us, and maybe they don't want to vote on this because it is a political 'hot potato' and they don't want to show where they stand on this [issue] because it is a very touchy issue, but I would like to see them do their job and vote on it and just do it. I think it is a way of evading making a stand on it. Vice Chairman Lowden told Ms. Hem it may be for some, but others would vote on it immediately. She said the Legislature does traditionally come out of the session with several issues that go on the ballot that are not particularly controversial; they are just issues which they believe require further discussion, and allow the people to decide. Sonia Hem said she thinks this issue is very touchy, and there is great potential for it to be misunderstood. She declared everyone is in favor of dialog between parents and children, but feels that the ballot issue could be confusing to the point where people may vote for it and not quite understand what they are getting, and she is very leery of that. Vice Chairman Lowden said she agrees because she thinks ballot questions are traditionally poorly written, and that is why so many of them fail. She told Ms. Hem this one is already written in the bill, and is very clear. Senator Washington said if the ballot question regarding the tax initiative had been understood, there might have been a reversal in the outcome of that question. He insisted, whether the Legislature has made the judicial bypass constitutional or not the question still remains: should the general public have the right to vote on whether a parent should be notified regarding a minor's medical procedure? Ms. Martin told the committee one of the important things missed here is the people this law will truly affect, women under 16 years of age, will not have an opportunity to vote on this, and will not have a say in how this will affect their lives. She asserted that is one thing which needs to be examined aside from the fact she does not believe the topic of abortion leads to a healthy dialog. She stressed we need only look at how many clinics are currently being bombed and how many women who work in clinics have died to know the issue of abortion does not lead to a healthy dialog. Senator Washington said he thinks most Nevadans are neither to the left nor to the right; they are concerned about their state, their community, and their families, and will take a look at the issue, decipher it, and come up with an intelligent decision based on their perspective. He said he thinks if we throw the question away, we are throwing away the opportunity for the general populous to make that decision. He said those unable to vote on this issue will have the opportunity to vote when they come of age. Ms. Martin insisted for them it will already be too late, because this law will already be affecting them. Senator Washington told Ms. Martin, "Not necessarily, because it is a referendum and can be revisited." Senator Coffin said the state health division reported in 1993 there were no pregnancies in girls under the age of 12, but there were 114 pregnancies amongst girls 12-14. He remarked there seems to be an assumption that the Legislature routinely put things on the ballot, but insisted they really do not do that sort of thing routinely. He explained that is why he is paying so much attention to the wording of this statute, because it cannot be taken lightly since the Legislature has never before placed on the ballot a statute in the form of a legislative referendum. He said it is a precedent setting move which requires caution. He said the Legislative Counsel Bureau issued an opinion which affirms that and, therefore, the committee must pay close attention to the wording of the entire bill, not just the wording of the three lines in the ballot question. He cautioned, if they do not, all the work and dialog will be for naught because the court will declare it unconstitutional on various points. He said that is why it is worthy of a dialog. He said he does not have too much objection to putting it on the ballot if that is what the majority of the Legislature wants, but said it must be right because it would put a law on the books. He insisted it is not simply an advisory question, but it could turn out to be since the next Legislature will convene 2 1/2 weeks after this would go into effect and could completely nullify it without any recourse to the voters. Senator Mathews asked Chairman Rawson if the explanation of the text is also a part of the law. She said the question seems to be a simple yes or no, but there has to be some explanation somewhere, and asked if that does not have to be a part of the law. Senator Washington told Senator Mathews there will be an explanation of the question on the ballot, regarding the notification and the judicial bypass. He said the preamble of the bill, lines 20 through 22, indicates the existing law will be conformed to the standards required by the United State Supreme Court, thereby making the requirements valid and enforceable. He told her the preamble states what the bill will accomplish. Senator Mathews asked if the explanation becomes part of the law. Senator Coffin replied the law which would go on the books, if the question passed, would not be in the explanation. Isaac Pierce read his prepared written testimony (Exhibit L) to the committee in Carson City expressing his opposition to S.B. 408. Chairman Rawson told Mr. Pierce that he does not think 14-year olds should have children. He said he got the impression that Mr. Pierce thought the Legislature is of the opinion that they should force 14-year olds to have children, and stated that is not his personal opinion. Mr. Pierce said the point that he is trying to make is that parents will take control, even though the law may state that they do not have control, that is just the way things are. Senator Washington asked Mr. Pierce if he thinks it is bad for the parents to take control. Mr. Pierce answered only if the situation arises where that control could hurt the child or young woman's future, which, in this case, he believes it could. Senator Washington asked Mr. Pierce if he does not think parents would have the child's future and their best interests at heart. Mr. Pierce replied, in most cases, yes, but there are always exceptions. He insisted the exception is where things fall apart, and in this case the exception could ruin someone's life. Senator Washington stated he is a parent of a 16-year old daughter who attends Reed High School, who will definitely say he is not perfect, but said he does have her best interests at heart. Senator Augustine asked Mr. Pierce, as a 16-year old, what role he feels his parents play in his development. Mr. Pierce responded his mother is the most wonderful person, and he would go to his mother, but added he has known and dealt with many teens where that is not the case. Senator Augustine restated her question, asking Mr. Pierce what role he feels his parents play in his teen years. She asked if they provide guidance, or set down rules he has to follow? Mr. Pierce told Senator Augustine his parents do make rules, but they are not government imposed. Senator Augustine asked Mr. Pierce if he were injured and taken to the hospital for treatment, would he want his parents to be notified? Mr. Pierce answered in the affirmative, but insisted in the case of abortion although he thinks parents need to know, it should be the child who tells them of their own free will; they should not be forced to tell their parents. Senator Washington asked Mr. Pierce, if it is his feeling the government should not get involved in his life or allow parents to make decisions for their children. Should the Legislature throw out the law that requires a person to be a certain age to obtain a driver's license since it is a form of government involvement? Mr. Pierce replied the difference is that when a person is too young to drive safely he could kill other people, but having an abortion would not kill other people on the freeway. Senator Washington stated it is still government involvement. Mr. Pierce agreed, but stated there is nothing he can do about it. Suzanne Denton-Pratt, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, testified on behalf of Glinda Bullock from Las Vegas. She told the committee she worked in a maternity home in 1971 when Roe v. Wade was decided and where she met a 15-year old who gathered money from her high school classmates to get a bus ticket to leave her state and travel to the maternity home. She said she worked with the 15-year old, along with a psychologist and a group therapist. She stated it took all three of them 3 weeks to convince her to contact her brother who obtained the money she needed for a rho-gam shot. She said the 15-year old did not even have enough money to go to the corner market with the other teenagers. Ms. Denton-Pratt commented at the end of the delivery and release of the child for adoption, the 15-year old still would not talk with her parents. Ms. Denton-Pratt insisted communication between parent and child cannot be legislated. She said it would be nice if kids who go through abortions could talk with their parents, but most cannot. Ms. Denton-Pratt said hindsight is usually "20/20," but most girls who have abortions, even if they talk to their parents, would not keep the babies. She said the passage of S.B. 408 will potentially put children at risk because they will be in fear. She submitted Ms. Bullock's prepared written testimony (Exhibit M) to the committee for inclusion in the minutes. Rabbi Richard Schachet, Representative, Metro Ministry of Southern Nevada, testified from Las Vegas. He told the committee he represents a group of more than 20 clergy who are extremely interested in the civil and human rights of all people regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation or age. He said all of them, whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant or Muslim, are unfalteringly opposed to S.B. 408. He said all of them have seen youngsters, afraid to talk to their parents, go in for illegal abortions. He stated he was a member of the clergy consultation service on abortion pre- Roe v. Wade. He told the committee the clergy were a nationwide group who saw too many youngsters die because of back alley abortions. He explained, at that time, it was not only youngsters who did not know where to go to get an abortion. He insisted parental notification was when he had to call a parent and say "your 15 year old daughter has died because of an illegal abortion, because she was afraid to talk with you." He said he does not want to have to revert to that type of notification again, but said this bill may very well force him to do it again. He mentioned prior to Roe v. Wade the law required one to go before a board, very similar to the judge in this legislation, in order to obtain a legal therapeutic abortion. He testified a 12 year old girl, pregnant as the result of an incestual relationship, went before the board and was asked, "Wouldn't you like to have this baby to be able to play with it?" He remarked that is the kind of mentality of the people on the board. Rabbi Schachet asked the committee what happens if the judge in a judicial bypass process, because of his or her own religious beliefs, is opposed to abortion and denies the request. He insisted that will happen. He also asked the committee what will happen to a girl who is 14, 15, or 16 years old who wants to have an abortion, has thought it through logically, and the parents will not be supportive? He further asked the committee what will happen in the case of an incestual relationship when parental notification also means notifying the authorities, and the girl is afraid to talk about it? Lastly, he asked the committee what will happen when a young girl has an abusive family and is afraid to tell her parents she wants to have an abortion? Rabbi Schachet suggested, as a result of parental notification, there may be a lot more deaths caused by illegal abortions. Rabbi Schachet said many times after a bill is passed, those who disagree with it introduce another bill to counter it, and insisted that is what is happening here. He asserted this is an issue on abortion, and the people present today are either pro- choice or pro-life; they are not pro-parental notification or anti-parental notification. Senator Augustine told Rabbi Schachet she disagrees with him because she is pro-choice, but she is in favor of this bill. Rabbi Schachet insisted Senator Augustine told him she is pro- life, not pro-choice! He testified he spoke with her personally on the telephone prior to the election. Senator Augustine vehemently disagreed with Rabbi Schachet. Bob Fulkerson, Parent, testified he was blessed to have been brought up in a family where communication based on mutual respect and trust was imbedded him and his siblings, and said they are trying to pass those values on to their children. He told the committee S.B. 408 is flawed because government cannot mandate that kind of communication. He said he has dealt with unfunded mandates on other issues, and insisted S.B. 408 is an unfunded mandate to the counties. He said a court procedure for judicial bypass will impose an added drain on county finances, and stressed the fiscal impact of S.B. 408 must be fully examined. Abby Johnson, League of Women Voters of Nevada, testified before the committee in Carson City. She told the committee, in the past, the League of Women Voters have produced ballot issue booklets, and is experienced in providing voters with both sides of ballot questions. She insisted Nevada voters have already overwhelmingly affirmed their support for choice in 1990 through a vote initiated referendum. She questioned why this issue needs to be put on the ballot at all. She said it is the function and the responsibility of the Legislature to act on the tough and complicated issues, and to make the tough decisions. She insisted this is that kind of issue. Ms. Johnson said it is also the responsibility of the Legislature not to pass bad legislation or permit it to be put on the ballot. She said testimony today indicates this potential statute is flawed public policy. Ms. Johnson implored the committee to think about the precedent this will set for future ballot measures. She stated this is a Legislative referendum; it is not originating by petition from the voters, nor does it propose to change the language in the Nevada Constitution. She emphasized this kind of legislative referendum will set a precedent for turning the tough, complicated issues over to the voters and open the door to the potential for a myriad of ballot measures. She said we have seen the effects of that approach in California, with dozens of ballot questions frustrating and confusing voters and contributing to lower voter participation, voter disaffection and apathy. She said legislators already know this is a complex matter, and added the issue has already involved costly court battles with parental notification measures being rejected twice by the courts. She stated the League of Women Voters urge the committee and the Senate as a whole, to answer the question, "Does this question belong on the ballot?" by rejecting S.B. 408. Sarah Chvilicek, Northern Division Chair, Nevada Women's Lobby, testified before the committee in Carson City. She presented the committee with a copy of the Nevada Women's Agenda 1995 and referred them to page 32 (Exhibit N) which expresses the Nevada Women's Lobby's position on choice issues. Ms. Chvilicek asked the members of her group to introduce themselves. Mary Larson, President, Nevada Women's Political Caucus, came forth to voice their opposition to S.B. 408. Ms. Larson told the committee she worked hard to get Proposition 7 on the ballot, so the people of Nevada could vote on this issue. She said she thinks it is inappropriate the Senate is doing this because, if there is such an outcry for parental notification, it should come from the voters, and they should get a referendum together and obtain signatures like the Nevada Women's Political Caucus did to get this issue on the ballot so voters can vote on it, and not have senators pass the buck. Sharon Brezney, President, Capitol Women's Political Caucus, told the committee her group opposes S.B. 408. Denise Rene‚ Duarte, President, Reno Business and Professional Women, told the committee they adamantly oppose S.B. 408. Holly VanValkenburgh, American Association of University Women, presented their position paper to the committee (Exhibit O) expressing their opposition to S.B. 408. Stephanie Zapherion, Northern Nevada President, National Organization for Women (NOW), testified NOW is strictly opposed to S.B. 408. Rosalie Clark, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter, told the committee they oppose S.B. 408. She pointed out if the parent denies her child the right to an abortion, it is the young woman who has to assume the moral, legal and financial responsibility for the child, even though she may only be 14 years old. Ms. Clark told Senator Washington she wishes every child could have a parent like him because she knows by observing him today he is sincere, and she can tell he cares, but added not all parents do care that much. Karen Layne, Chairperson, Southern Nevada Women's Political Caucus, testified from Las Vegas. She told the committee, following the lead of the Nevada Women's Political Caucus, the Southern Nevada Women's Political Caucus wishes also to voice opposition to S.B. 408. She submitted their position paper on the issue (Exhibit P), for inclusion in the minutes. Paul Brown, Southern Nevada Coordinator, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), who represents 23 organizations statewide, testified from Las Vegas to voice PLAN's opposition to S.B. 408. Mr. Brown submitted their position paper on S.B. 408 (Exhibit Q) for inclusion in the minutes. Amy Meedel, State President, National Organization for Women (NOW), testified from Las Vegas and told the committee NOW rejects S.B. 408, and hopes the senators on this committee will do their job and not pass the buck. She asked the committee to please do the right thing. Diana Wilson, Campaign for Choice, testified from Las Vegas. She stated Campaign for Choice was the organization that opposed Question 7 in 1990. She said Campaign for Choice is a coalition of more than 50 organizations statewide, and urged the committee to vote no on S.B. 408. She added she feels many who favor S.B. 408 have tried to paint those who oppose the bill as uncaring individuals. She stated emphatically she is a children's advocate. She said most of those with her at the meeting in Las Vegas are children's advocates as well. She said they love and care about what happens to their children. She said she is the mother of three children, two of them daughters. She insisted this legislation will not help increase family communication. Ruth Mills, President, League of Women Voters of Las Vegas Valley, testified from Las Vegas. She told the committee they are strongly opposed to S.B. 408 and would like to add emphasis to the testimony given by Abby Johnson. Ms. Johnson asked the committee, if this is truly a bill about family values as Senator Washington states, would we not also want to involve the male that is responsible in the pregnancy, and notify his parents as well. Senator Washington replied, "Absolutely!" Ms. Johnson told Senator Washington if that is true, it is not reflected in his proposed legislation. Chairman Rawson stated the time has expired for the oppositional testimony. He said the committee will now hear rebuttal from the proponents of the bill. Patricia Glenn, President, Nevada Right to Life, testified from Carson City. She presented her prepared written testimony (Exhibit R) expressing her support for S.B. 408. She insisted several states with parental notification or parental involvement laws have shown a decrease in teenage abortion, teenage birth rate, and teenage pregnancy rate. She said those statistics tell us that parental involvement laws actually cause teens to act more responsibly when it comes to sexual involvement and getting pregnant. She stated, in Minnesota, there was no evidence of even a single report of child abuse caused by parental notification, a single report of medical complications caused by the law, or a single case of parental prevention or coercion of an abortion. She said she thinks that Nevada could learn from the states that have already passed parental notification laws. She maintained Nebraska has had a similar experience. She insisted parental involvement not only works for education and getting kids off of drugs, it also works when it comes to teens getting involved in sexual activity and getting pregnant. Ms. Glenn told the committee the possibility of an amendment which would replace parents with counselor or clergyman would totally defeat the purpose of this bill because Planned Parenthood has pushed for that type of substitution for a parent, and the substitute becomes a counselor at an abortion clinic, or someone who may have a vested financial interest in the girl getting an abortion. She said if the committee replaces parental notification with a third party notification it, too, would defeat the purpose of this referendum. She told the committee when Question 7 was on the ballot and they questioned whether that would affect the parental notification law that had already been passed in the Nevada Legislature, the attorney general issued an opinion that it would in no way prevent parental notification from being implemented if it were judged to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. She remarked, since that time, there have been several cases where the Supreme Court decided that parental notification could be constitutional, and said this bill definitely is constitutional on every one of those counts, and to say that it was voted on in Question 7 by the people is not true. She concluded this particular aspect was not voted on, and contended it is certainly proper, right, and fitting for it to be voted on by the people again. Senator Coffin asked Ms. Glenn since she voiced opposition to a counselor being substituted for a parent, if she has any objection to a minister being substituted for a parent. Ms. Glenn said she cannot see adding anyone else besides the parents. She said the judge is the only one who has the authority to grant that minor child the right to have an abortion without her parents' notification. She stated there is no way to replace the judicial bypass with anybody else. Senator Coffin told Ms. Glenn, if the law is passed by the people, the people can decide by their vote that they can say, in addition to judges, ministers could also perform that function. Ms. Glenn said she does not see that it would accomplish anything. Senator Coffin told Ms. Glenn that is arguable, whether or not she likes it. Ms. Glenn told Senator Coffin the primary concern is that the parents know, and if a minister or counselor is added it just complicates the whole issue. She said it is nice if the young woman wants to talk to her clergyman, but the primary thrust of this referendum would be that at least one parent or guardian would be notified. Mr. Post, told the committee he takes issue with Mr. Tierney's statement that near chaos would envelope the courthouse if this bill were passed. He said he does not think the numbers would be there, and expressed his belief that procedural problems could easily be overcome. He testified Washoe County pioneered the temporary protective orders in domestic violence cases where a woman does not "face" a judge, but rather has an interview, as in this bill. He said the woman is taken by the hand throughout the procedure, the filing fees are waived, and in less than an hour she has accomplished her mission. He said they have two family judges in Washoe County who are extremely caring, unimposing individuals who will talk to the young girls on a one-on-one confidential basis. Senator Neal asked Mr. Post, "What about the [de novo] hearing?" Mr. Post replied he was not aware of that until today. He said it is true that the Supreme Court is not a trial court, and cannot take evidence or hear testimony from witnesses. He said they could easily change that. He said he is not ready to say that is a problem right now, but if it turns out to be a problem you say "appealed" to the Supreme Court, and they do what they have always done. Kris Jensen, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), from Las Vegas, testified NCC does encourage and support family values, and they feel that this bill will help support and not destroy families, as was witnessed by Ms. Sayre. She cited a USA Today poll which indicates 72 percent of the people support parental notification by minors, and a CBS/New York Times poll, where 75 percent of those polled supported parental notification for minors. She said the bottom line is that this bill, although misrepresented by some, allows this issue to go to a vote of the people. She said NCC requests that the committee allow the people to speak. Andy Anderson, C.H.I.L.D. of God, testified before the committee in Carson City. He conveyed a personal incident involving an abortion and subsequent suicide by the woman who had the abortion, and urged the committee to support S.B. 408. Maggie Tracey, Chairperson, Campaign for Choice, told the committee she does support parental notification, but not mandated parental notification and believes there is a major difference between the two. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Tracey to explain what she means and asked if she only supports voluntary parental notification. Ms. Tracey answered in the affirmative. She said she does not think there is a person in the room who does not believe family communications can be improved, and should be the first step in any difficult decision, but does not think the majority of the people, if they truly understand the issue, would say it should be mandated by law. She said the law, as it is written, is basically unenforceable as she sees it, because minors can leave the state to accomplish their desires. She said statistics show family violence increases during pregnancy if there tends to be violence anyway. She said the earlier the pregnancy is treated, the less complications there are, and the courts could possibly delay the process. She said she does appreciate Senator Washington putting in a 1-day requirement on the judicial bypass. She said Campaign for Choice went to the people, obtained the necessary signatures, and put Question 7 on the ballot, and can attest to the controversy during that time. Ms. Tracey said Senator Neal previously asked if the referendum would close the issue. She told the committee she does not see the referendum ending the issue of parental notification. She said if it is, indeed, a legislative initiative, it is not codifying the law, and if it passed, the 1997 Legislature could be required to review it again. Ms. Tracey asked Senator Augustine if she would have found it very difficult at 16 to testify before a senate committee, as she indicated to Mr. Pierce, why the Legislature would impose a mandate on young women, who do not even feel comfortable talking to their parents, to go before a judge. She said she also feels that this law would substitute a judge's values for family values, and does not think that is the intent of the bill. Vice Chairman Lowden replied there is a difference between testifying before a Senate committee and large audience where everything is taped for public record, and having a one-on-one interview with a judge. Ms. Tracey concurred but said she is not sure which would be more frightening at 16. Ms. Tracey pointed out in 1990, Nevadans voted overwhelmingly to affirm a woman's right to choose and keep government out of their lives. She suggested this legislation would put a very complex issue on the ballot with very little explanation of the ramifications of the law. She asked the committee if they are going to put the 38-word question on the ballot, if it will include a fiscal note, and further asked what the explanation will be. Ms. Tracey told the committee the Campaign for Choice was challenged by the opposition in 1990 and had to go before the Supreme Court to clarify the language on that ballot question, and realizes how difficult it is. She asked the committee how they expect people to understand this issue when there is such conflicting testimony and emotion involved. Ms. Tracey stated the majority of minors do presently notify one parent. She said Dr. Stutz at the Women's West End Clinic in Reno, feels that 80 percent of the minors that come in for abortion tell their parents. She said they also have statements from the Alan Gutmacher Institute that indicate only 16 percent of youngsters 15 and younger do not notify their parents. She urged the committee to vote no on S.B. 408. Laura Fitzsimmons, Attorney, testified she is a member of the commission on judicial selection. She told the committee the commission chooses three candidates from a pool of applicants and submits them to the Governor. She said it is more difficult to get qualified people to apply for judgeships than commonly believed. Ms. Fitzsimmons stated she agrees with Senator Coffin that this issue is very political, and agrees with Senator Lowden in that she believes this is the first time that the Legislature has chosen this vehicle for determining an issue that is not a constitutional amendment or a tax-affected statute. She stated judges in Nevada are not immune to political pressure. She voiced her concern that the passage of S.B. 408 will burden the system including the court appointed attorneys who will be expected to work on the weekends. Ms. Fitzsimmons asked the committee to imagine a 14-year old walking into the Austin courthouse to talk to a judge. She asserted that would not be a confidential proceeding because people will know why that girl entered the courthouse, particularly in small communities, including Douglas County and Carson City. Ms. Fitzsimmons maintained the entire judicial bypass provision of this bill has obviously been propounded by people who do not understand the reality of practice in most of Nevada and do not understand the political pressure that is going to be placed on judges. She concluded this Legislature will, for a very small problem numerically, create enormous issues that will have other ramifications on the judiciary. Shelly Fisher, Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, testified from Las Vegas. She told the committee she wants to correct Eileen Roberts on her comment about Planned Parenthood in Indiana. She insisted Planned Parenthood did counsel Becky Bell to speak to her parents, and told Becky there was nothing they could do; she would have to tell her parents. She declared Planned Parenthood does not support this bill. She reemphasized that abortion is not a word to banter around with dialog because it brings out a lot of hostility, emotion and violence as evidenced by the violence against abortion clinics. Senator Washington told the committee he has an opinion from Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, regarding the S.B. 408 (Exhibit S). There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Rawson adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Linda Chapman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities May 3, 1995 Page