In the last session of the Legislature, in trying to set a fair price for our oil, the Senate Finance and Resource committee sought the advice and expertise from some independent, international experts knowledgeable regarding the oil industry.

If the current Senate plans to determine when and under what conditions an abortion is "medically necessary," I hope they too call upon independent, knowledgeable medical experts to assist them in their efforts.

Defining "medically necessary" is an appropriate legislative function, one of the reasons we elect representatives and senators; far better than arbitrary court decisions.

I would leave the definition of “medically necessary” to the medical community. This is nothing more than trying to regulate morality, can’t be done ethically. The Doctor will tell a woman if and when an abortion is necessary for medical reasons. If it is done otherwise, it is not up to the people of the state to fund it! It would then be termed “elective”

Dr. says it is needed, state definition says no? Who gets the call?

Our Government cannot force religious beliefs on people.

John Coghill if you are going to call people sinners and make a law based on honoring a god you should first prove that there really is a god.

Medically necessary and convenient seem to be the same for several people concerned about beliefs and rights!

Was he ever a foster parent? Take in a homeless child? Donate to charities that support mothers keeping their children rather than having abortions and is he willing to fund them until the child is old enough to go to school and they can get a job? Don't posture you old [filtered word] -- stand up and put your money where your mouth is.

Congratulations - you win the award from commentators today for the most stupid comment of the day - totally irrelevant, senseless and insulting.
We will watch again tomorrow to see if you again are a winner or loser.

Speaking of ars.....

Can't you find another forum for your tasteless invective?

"He said with abortion, God is not honored."

WTFrak!?! Don't they realize how silly this statement is?

Most anti-choicers, anti-privacy people hold the view that all birth control is an abortion as it flaunts their god's law.

Many, if not all of these anti-choicers, anti-privacy people also hold that if a woman is raped and is impregnated by her rapist, that that child is a gift from their god.

Many, if not all of these anti-choicers, anti-privacy people also hold that if a woman is raped by a family member and impregnated by her rapist, that that child is a gift from their god.

Many, if not all of these anti-choicers, anti-privacy people also hold that if a woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy she cannot have an abortion.

That the opinion of these people can demand any respect or consideration in public policy is ridiculous. That they wrap this obscene and illegal intrusion into another person’s life in the "freedom of religion" is even more ridiculous.

I will also direct you to check out Article 1, Sections 14 and 22 of the Alaska Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses and other property, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." and "The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section."

The State has absolutely no business being in a woman's body.

I would also point you to Article 1, Section 1 "This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State."

Senator Coghill has a Constitutional obligation to protect the rights of the people.

Section 2 reads: "All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole." Senator Coghill has voted for banning abortions in instances that protect the lives of mothers. Essentially advocating for a law that would endanger the lives of mothers across this state. This is in clear violation of Section 2.

And finally Section 4: No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Senator Coghill is clearly intends on establishing a law based upon his personal religious beliefs. Again, in clear violation of the Alaska Constitution.

Senator Coghill has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Alaska Constitution. He clearly does not understand what the Alaska Constitution means and its strong protection of personal privacy.

The only person who should be making decisions about their bodies is that individual.

More than fifty years ago, I worked for two summers in a rather small hospital as an orderly. During that time, changing my clothes to go work alongside medical doctors, talking with them, working with them I learned that the practice of medicine is extremely complex. It is an "art" in that using all the science, skills and knowledge they have, daily decisions concerning patients is not easy nor simple.
In my studies of biology, genetics, human evolution, people and cultures in many cases there are no easy and simplistic answers to problems.

Yes, among all biological creatures using sexual reproduction, the instant a male sperm and female egg come in contact, that is the beginning of a new life, a zygote or "living being." But that does not mean that at that instant the living cells are frogs, dogs, fish, humans or birds. To become whatever they may possibly become takes a time of "gestation." For humans that means normally nine months from conception to birth.
During that time the DNA of cells, the nutrition of the woman carrying the child, accidents, and other factors all may determined whether or not the two cells that came together result in a new human or not. The initial union of an egg and sperm is the beginning, but to say that at that instant those two cells, microscopically small, comprise a "human person," is biologically an assumption. Certainly, after nine months, if all goes well, there is no doubt that the fetus a woman carries is another "human being." In the meantime, if the chemicals produced by DNA do not work as they should, exactly on time and in proper sequence, producing the chemicals required, the woman may experience a "miscarriage." That is, the new embryo or fetus is rejected from her body. That might be called a natural abortion. Of course logically, that would make "Mother Nature" or "God" an "abortionist." It happens quite often.

In some cases, such as "ectopic pregnancy" where the new cell combination anchors not in the womb as normal, but in the fallopian tubes, the embryo or fetus will never survive to birth. In the meantime, as it grows it may bring about the death of the woman bearing that embryo or fetus. Then both the fetus and mother will die. When doctors determine that is what is happening, they must immediately remove the cells growing in the wrong place, to preserve the mother's life. It can be called an "abortion", but it is a matter of preserving one life (that of the mother) rather than the life of a fetus (that in no way will live long enough to be born) and that of the mother.
There are many, many other factors involved in the sequence between the union of a human egg and sperm and the production of new human being. A simple "living cell combination" is not necessarily a living human person. The possibility it there but sometime between conception and birth, if all goes well, there becomes a new human "person."

In all of this complexity of biology, genetics, gestation I personally think that for state legislators to write a law, or modify a law, saying that they will determine when it is "medically necessary" to terminate a pregnancy, quite presumptive.
On top of this, if a woman is raped, and impregnated against her will, or in some way is impregnated and foreign cells have invaded her body and are growing there, she should have some time in which to reject the injustice and foreign cells.

I hope that Alaska State Legislators, do what they were elected to do. That is determine the budget, the economy, the future of our State, and not take on a huge obligation to try and define what they think is a "medical necessity" for the termination of a pregnancy. That is something that should be left to the woman, and if married her husband, and the medical experts to decide, not legislators who have power because they were elected by a community, and may not have any expertise in some very complex areas.
That is my opinion.

I appreciate your view, but when you say "unless you are unborn" you are making an assumption that human being is being legally "murdered".
That assumption is that the microscopic union of a human cell and a human sperm, is "living human being." It is a very small combination of cells that that takes hours or days before it anchors in a place where it continues to grow. There is no one that can say for sure that it is a full human being- that is an assumption. If it fails to anchor in the right place, the womb of a woman, it may die in a very short time.
A form of what some consider "abortion" is the "morning after pill" that prevents a microscopic union from anchoring. It doesn't "kill" anything, it simple stops a possible process. If a woman is violated by someone, and her egg and the sperm of the violator has come into union, does a woman have no right at all to reject the invasion of another cell into her body? Is that an "abortion" ?
I am not a woman. But if someone injected into me a virus or bacteria that would impact the rest of my life, against my will or desire, should I not have the right to reject it as soon as I know it is in my body?
I know, and fully understand that people have beliefs and assumptions that to them are very important. There is a belief by some that at the instant that a human sperm and egg come into contact and combination, that it is a fully human person. That is a belief, not a proven fact. But we can't allow our personal beliefs and assumptions to determine the lives of other people. I have beliefs and assumptions, but I know they are mine and in no way think that I can impose my beliefs on others.
I also have facts, data, information that at times I use to accept or reject some conclusions. I reject the idea that terminating the life of some microscopic cells is a legal "murder."
That's my opinion. It is not a "fact" it is just a conclusion based on evidence and what I know.

If you don't like abortions don't have one.

@wmolson you called a miscarriage a "natural abortion" I've always used the term spontaneous abortion. I think the term "natural" could cause problems in people accepting your arguments.

I think some have lost sight of the actual situation where the question is: Should the State of Alaska be funding abortions? The court came back and said that you need to fund all medically necessary procedures(including abortions). What's medically necessary-well we don't have a definition.

How can you make a definition for every situation? You can't. You can give the doctors guidelines but you can't legislate what a doctor perceives as medically necessary. One doctor might say ok while another might say no. It's a medical opinion.

Many people raised good arguments some citing the Constitution. It's important to remember that your rights are governed by that "piece of paper" and we can add or delete anything any time we want(Think slavery, prohibition, women's voting and most recently in Alaska defining marriage between a man and woman....). In the end we will all have to agree to disagree. Be a good person, help those in need and if someone makes a mistake forgive them-even if you consider an abortion a mistake. In order to be forgiven you must first have the chance to make a mistake.

I appreciate your views and ideas. But a person has to be clear and precise in what they say. For example, I called a miscarriage a "natural abortion." Well, I don't know what other term would be more appropriate when a cluster of cells in a human body are unable to develop into a fully human fetus and is then, through simple biology ejected from a woman's body. To say it is "spontaneous" means that someone - the woman, the embryo or fetus - "sponsors and supports" that "decision". It is not a "decision," nor "spontaneous." It is simply what happens when an organism within another living organism is rejected by the host organism.

It is easy to say " If you don't like abortions, don't have one."
That seems rather simplistic to me, especially as a male who has never been pregnant. Maybe someone should tell me, "If you don't want to take on the lifetime responsibilities of being a father to a child, then you should never have sex or impregnate a female human."

The point of the article and subsequent comments was that some in our state legislature said they wanted to define what is "medically necessary." But when it comes to medical decisions most of us, including a majority of legislators (except for a couple of them) are not medical doctors, have not legally practiced medicine in Alaska.

When you say that some commentators have cited the national Constitution but it is now just a piece of paper. It is the basis upon which our nation was founded and has, over time, been amended and changed at times, and in some cases only after a long civil war and thousands of citizens killed.
What we have to do is look at that Constitution clearly, without and political partisanship trying to interpret it along political partisan lines, and with aid come to an agreement that some idea is not just what our founding fathers had, but is what we as United States citizens understand as the rule of the land.

It is not about being "forgiven if you make a mistake," its about humans, medicine, human rights and trying to determine what is fair for all citizens.

We can't just "agree to disagree" but decide what is fair, equal, right or wrong regarding human rights.
I have no idea who you are, nor anything about you as a person. But I do hope that you appreciate the great psychological, moral, sometimes religious turmoil that goes on within a woman when she may have to terminate a pregnancy within her body.... it is much more than a "mistake" or being "forgiven," I as a male have never had to live through the kind of decision in life, but I do appreciate what that might be for a woman.
To have state legislators, mostly male, try to decide and determine what is "medically necessary" to me seems to be far beyond their responsibility or competence as representatives elected to office by a local community.
That's my opinion

Molsen your undeniable ability to use logic, personal experience and research to form opinions is absolutely amazing to me. It's almost like you don't really have an agenda or any biased view. I wish I were in one of your classes teaching anything.