Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Parental Notification of Abortion Initiative (August 2010)

Alaska Ballot Measure 2
Election date August 24, 2010
Topic Abortion
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

Alaska Ballot Measure 2 was on the ballot as an indirect initiated state statute in Alaska on August 24, 2010. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported changing state law to require parental notification 48 hours prior to an emancipated minor undergoing an abortion.

A "no" vote opposed changing state law to require parental notification 48 hours prior to an emancipated minor undergoing an abortion.

Election results

Alaska Ballot Measure 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		90,259	56.06%
No		70,746	43.94%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

Ballot Measure 2 required doctors to inform parents of their minor child's intent to seek an abortion procedure, and penalized doctors who did not receive parents' consent.

Aftermath

2019 State Supreme Court Ruling

On June 21, 2019, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the parental notification requirement violated the state constitution's guarantee of "the fundamental right to privacy and its requirement that any burden on that right must be the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest."

Lawsuit filed

Planned Parenthood filed its attempt to block the law, which was set to take effect on December 14, 2010. The lawsuit was filed on the grounds that the law violated the constitutional rights of those girls who would be affected by the law and the rights of their doctors. According to the group, in its motion, the law "will, for some minors who are subject to strict parental control, function as a parental consent requirement. And for some minors, (the law) will take away their ability to obtain abortion services at all." The state Department of Law reviewed the filed lawsuit. According to Bill McAllister, the state would likely defend Ballot Measure 2. The lawsuit was filed during the week of November 23, 2010.

Ruling

Superior Court Judge John Suddock ruled that the measure should stand; however, the judge stated that doctors should not go to jail for failing to comply with the new law. The ruling was given on December 13, 2010.

According to Simon, "We are pleased that the judge gave a partial injunction. He obviously felt responsibility to let the law go forward if he could." However, Minnery said the ruling made the law ineffective since physicians could not be punished: "What's the incentive for a physician? It's basically a suggestion. It's an Alaska State Suggestion now, under the judge."

Reconsideration of ruling

According to reports, the state wanted the lawsuit to be looked at again and filed a motion for reconsideration. Governor of Alaska Sean Parnell stated that he would “continue to work to ensure that Alaska’s families are represented and that the law truly reflects the will of the people.” Judge Suddock denied the state's request for a summary judgment during the week of September 29, 2011, which would have tossed out portions of the case.

On October 9, 2012, Judge John Suddock ruled in favor of the measure, stating that although the measure does not make abortion safer, that the measure would "prod some pregnant minors to alert their parents without adverse consequence." Suddock also stated that some “minors might be pleasantly surprised when (they find they) underestimated parents’ support, comfort.”

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Ballot Measure 2 was as follows:

“

This bill would change the law to require notice to the parent or guardian of a female under the age of 18 before she has an abortion. Currently, a female under 18 may have an abortion with no notice to her parent or guardian. The bill includes detailed requirements for the notice, including that the minor's doctor must provide the notice at least 48 hours before the procedure. This waiting period would be waived if a parent or guardian gives consent. The bill also allows the minor to go to court to authorize an abortion without giving notice to her parent or guardian. The minor could ask the court to excuse her from school to attend the hearings and to have the abortion. The court could direct the school not to tell the minor's parent or guardian of the minor's pregnancy, abortion, or absence from school. The bill allows a minor who is a victim of abuse by her parent or guardian to get an abortion without notice or consent. To do this, the minor and an adult relative or authorized official with personal knowledge of the abuse must sign a notarized statement about the abuse. The bill would make it a felony for a doctor to knowingly violate the statutory notice provisions for giving the minor's parents notice of the minor's intent to have an abortion. The bill sets out a doctor's defense for performing an abortion without first providing notice or obtaining consent where the minor faces an immediate threat of death or permanent physical harm from continuing the pregnancy. Doctors who perform abortions on a minor would have to submit reports. This bill amends a law passed by the legislature in 1997 that is on the books but which may not be enforced because of a Court decision. The 1997 law was known as the 'Parental Consent Act.' This bill makes changes to the 1997 law to address concerns in the Court decision and seeks to make the law, as amended, enforceable. Should this initiative become law?

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Support

Supporters

Officials

• Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R)
• Former Alaska Lt. Gov. Loren Leman
• Alaska Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell (R)

Organizations

• Alaska Family Council

Arguments

• President of the Alaska Family Council Jim Minnery: "It is not an anti-abortion initiative as it will be positioned. It's basically a parental rights initiative."
• Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: "I acknowledge the 'new normal' we're dealing with today will no doubt see someone filing a charge against me anyway, for exercising my First Amendment rights as a citizen, but I will not hesitate to speak up in support of Alaska's daughters."

Opposition

Opponents

Organizations

• ACLU of Alaska
• Center for Reproductive Rights
• Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands

Arguments

• ACLU of Alaska: "The ACLU of Alaska believes young women who are pregnant need safe and confidential medical care, not laws that make it harder to get support from trusted adults."
• Alaska vice president of Planned Parenthood Clover Simon: "I'm afraid that young women in that situation are going to see this and they're just not going to get any help at all and they are going to take things into their own hand(s)... If you Google abortion or self-induced abortion you can get all kinds of bad advice."

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Alaska ballot measures, 2010

Support

• The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner Editorial Board: "Ballot Measure 2 is a moderate compromise that will preserve a modicum of parental involvement while offering plenty of off-ramps for kids who don’t feel safe with that involvement. Alaskans should vote 'yes' on Tuesday."
• The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman Editorial Board: "The measure won’t put government in our lives, as opponents claim; it will keep the government from circumventing the family unit and allowing a scared, pregnant teen to submit to a major medical procedure without parental (or judicial) consent. Like a tattoo (for which she would need parental permission), this decision will be with her forever. It is her parents’ right and responsibility to help her make a good one. Ballot Measure 2 will ensure they’ve had the chance to help."

Opposition

• The Juneau Empire Editorial Board: "The language of the question spells out alternatives to this notification: a judicial bypass, or through written testimony of the abuse by both the minor and a relative, police officer or state investigator. And, it is the narrowness of these exceptions that should mean the failure of this proposal. The judicial bypass requires a minor to either hope a judge finds her "sufficiently mature and well enough informed" to decide for herself on the termination of her unwanted pregnancy, or testify about abuse the minor suffered at the hands of the parent or guardian she is looking to avoid notifying."
• The Peninsula Clarion Editorial Board: "We can, however, argue that we've evolved beyond the time when laws can discriminate based on gender. We can argue that it is wrong to demand that anyone in this country, based on his or her gender, must succumb to the will of the state. Think about that when you vote on Aug. 24. In short: There's got to be a more just government response to the abortion question."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alaska

The signature deadline to place the measure on the November 2, 2010 ballot was on January 15, 2010. Sponsors turned in signatures to the Alaska Division of Elections the day of the deadline, claiming to have obtained enough signatures to place the measure on the November ballot. The campaign, Alaskans for Parental Rights, stated that they had submitted approximately 47,000 signatures, greatly surpassing the required number of signatures from 36 of the state's districts.

All Alaskan initiatives are indirect initiated state statutes, as per state law. This means that if the Division of Elections’ office deems the signatures valid, the next step would be a review from the Legislature before it could be sent to the ballot.

Signatures were certified during the week of March 12, 2010. The elections office reported 36,285 valid signatures, well over the required 32,734 needed to place the question on the ballot.

Ballot summary lawsuit

A lawsuit was filed by Jeff Feldman, an attorney for Planned Parenthood of Alaska, which was in opposition to the measure. Feldman stated that the lieutenant governor should not have approved the initiative, citing that the measure misled voters and was unlawful. The case was heard by the Alaska Supreme Court on February 24, 2010.

During the court hearing, Feldman claimed that the initiative was misleading, "It omits very significant details of the burdens that are placed on minors and physicians. It fails to inform voters immediately about the option for court representation. It talks about a minor obtaining a judicial bypass, well I don't think very many lay citizens know what a judicial bypass is or that it necessarily would require that a minor go to court and file a lawsuit in order to obtain relief from the notice requirement."

Feldman also argued that the summary of the initiative did not clarify that criminal offenses for physicians would occur if not followed. He also claimed that the following points should have been included in the initiative:

• The notice of provision,
• That notice had to be included by the physician, and
• That the physician would be jailed if the legal procedure was not followed.

Kevin Clarkson, attorney for the initiative's sponsors, said, "What they need to know is if this initiative goes on the ballot and it passes: What is the law going to be. That's the main feature of the initiative. What it changed before is just nuance."

During the week of March 16, 2010, Superior Court Judge Frank Pfiffner ordered that the language for the ballot measure be rewritten in order to be placed on the ballot. Although Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the ACLU of Alaska argued that the language was misleading and should not be placed on the ballot, Pfiffner only ruled that the language be revised. According to Minnery, "Alaskans should celebrate they will now have an opportunity to address this important public policy matter themselves on the August Primary Election."

Clover Simon, vice president of Planned Parenthood of Alaska, stated that her group was still in the process of figuring out their next step.

Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Alaska and member of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, stated that he and his groups appealed the decision by Pfiffner. The groups stated that it was not enough that the lieutenant governor rewrites the ballot language.

The supreme court upheld the superior court's decision.

See also

2010 Measures

• 2010 Measures
• Abortion policy on the ballot
• 2010 legislative sessions

Alaska

• Alaska ballot measures
• Alaska ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Vote Smart, "Abortion for Minor Requires Notice to or Consent from Parent or Guardian or Through Judicial Bypass," accessed June 28, 2022