JUNEAU — The Alaska Legislature will hit its halfway point this week, with the Senate taking the lead on oil taxes as legislative leaders look at the spreading the workload and which bills should move.
An abortion bill, school vouchers and budget closeouts are among the highlights this week.
Abortion
The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing Wednesday on a bill that would define “medically necessary” abortions.
SB49 pertains to which abortions Alaska must pay for under the state Medicaid program. It states that the Department of Health and Social Services may not pay for abortion services under the program unless those abortions are medically necessary or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. John Coghill, dropped language that would have required the rape or incest to be “promptly reported” to law enforcement or public health authorities.
The Alaska Supreme Court has held that the state must fund medically necessary abortions if it funds other procedures deemed medically necessary for people in need. Coghill, R-North Pole, who is outspoken in his anti-abortion beliefs, has said he is seeking to clarify “under which circumstances it is appropriate for the people of Alaska to pay for an abortion.”
The political and organizing director at Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest says the bill would place “politicians between women and their doctors” and restrict access to state-funded abortions.
Coghill chairs the five-member Judiciary Committee. Two other committee members, Sens. Fred Dyson, R-Eagle River, and Donny Olson, D-Golovin, are co-sponsors of the bill.
School vouchers
The chairman of the Senate Education Committee is wasting no time in delving into the issue of school vouchers. Sen. Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, in an at-times funny, at-times scathing floor speech last week, announced plans for hearings on school vouchers. This came just days after a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow public money to be used for private schools was pulled from his committee, without his advance knowledge, while he was out of town.
The first discussion is scheduled for Friday.
The Senate majority last week announced that SJR9 could be heard by the Education Committee if “significant education issues arise” during the legislative process. It is currently scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary and Finance committees.
Senate leaders have said that this involves legal issues and the public would be allowed to debate the merits of the proposal if and when they are asked to vote on it. Critics say the proposal could have huge ramifications for the education system in Alaska.
Budget closeouts
A number of House finance subcommittees plan to close out their work on departmental budgets this week. That is a precursor to the House Finance Committee putting together its version of a state operating budget.
House Speaker Mike Chenault said he thought the full committee would have a bill in front of them by around March 11, with a floor vote on the bill possible later that week after additional committee work.
Comments (10)
Add commentAttack of the Fundies!
First they become doctors and define what's 'medically necessary', then they raid public money to fund religious schools.
And of course Sean Parnell will sign all of that into law when it reaches his desk.
Elections have consequences.
School funding
I guess I am curious where the schoold funding line would be drawn. Would they fund anti-christian schools or muslim schools? I, for one, think state funded schools should teach secular academia. Religiou should be saved for courses focused on teachign religiou and history. Religious/private schools can be funded through their representative religious organizaitons.
3 things to watch for in the legislature:
1. Lying
2. Cheating
3. Stealing
rain...
what's an "anti-christian school"?
jamison
Not noting a specific school, just talking in generals. Heck, could be a school founded on the principles set forth by satan, I guess.
private school
is an open classification and implies no restrictions as to what the foundations of that school may be. To start specifying any particular religious beliefs a school would have to accept would be an open promoting of some religions and not others.
Breaking the law
I would say that using public tax monies to fund private and religious organizations is illegal, but they know that (and thus are trying to rewrite the laws).
They'll spin this as "choice" for schooling. Too bad taxpayers don't have "choice" in funding.
I think the legislature has a steep hill to climb if they want to reason away Constitutional Law which has been carrying Alaskan education for the past seventy years...But then again, I will not accuse our Legislature of using logic and pragmatism to make reasonable "choices."
However, Copenhaver...
...we do have a choice in who we vote for.
Let's carefully watch what our representatives vote for.
Given the generous salaries they're pulling down, I see no reason why all of them shouldn't be running against opposition next time.
Can't help but think it is
Can't help but think it is well past time that the two party system became more flexible, providing more options (more candidates for voters to choose from) in general... Of course, that is another of those areas where freedom to "choose" is limited, in some ways deliberately.
Or to emphasize a different point, it is always fascinating where a political party chooses to act counter to its stated ideology... and shows what it truly values in the process.
Change in PFD policies . . .
Found this on the Alaska AP:
..."Monday's vote was 30-6.
HB52, from Rep. Eric Feige (FIE'-gee), would allow people gone from Alaska for more than five years to receive dividends — if they prove they are residents and that they intend to return to and stay indefinitely in Alaska.
Officials in deciding whether to award them dividends would be allowed to consider factors such as how often the individuals voluntarily return to Alaska and the ties they've established to Alaska or another place."
My question is for what good reason would Alaska wish to allow people who are out of state for more than 5 years to benefit from the PFD? Would seem like the idea is to help stimulate Alaska's economy, not the economy of a different state or for that matter a different country. If one of the reasons for the PFD is to offset the high cost of Alaska living, then not being here would negate the need . . . If anyone has any insight as to why this is so easily being pushed through, I would love to be enlightened. Thank you in advance. HT