Issues of Importance to North Dakota Women:
Voting Record of North Dakota’s 61st Legislative Assembly
The 2009 North Dakota Legislative Session ended in disappointments. As the North Dakota Women’s Network (NDWN), American Association of University Women – North Dakota (AAUW-ND) and our allies worked to advance equity and human rights through legislative change, we faced unforeseen opposition. We also realized potential new support.
Efforts to expand the state Commission on the Status of Women brought opposition from the current Commission Chair as well as an unreasonable fiscal note from the Department of Health.
Efforts to add sexual orientation to North Dakota’s anti-discrimination laws brought renewed activism among the citizens of North Dakota as well as informing advocacy groups of web-based organizing tools. Although the bill ultimately failed, the efforts set the stage for the future possibility for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights in North Dakota.
Those bills that were successful were not easily obtained. Year after year, the North Dakota Medical Association has worked to change laws to ease access to medical care for pregnant minors. Finally, this year the law was changed, but not until some compromises were made and compelling testimony about homeless teens changed perspectives. Additionally, protections for breastfeeding mothers finally passed, but only with added language regarding “discreet and modest,” thus losing support from many breastfeeding women.
As always, we entered the session advocating advances for women and instead became embroiled in defending a woman’s right to choose. A radical bill offered by Representative Ruby stipulating constitutional rights for any “organism with the genome of homo sapiens” surprisingly passed the House and demanded full attention to defeat this extreme measure. Thankfully, we were successful.
Ultimately, we leave the session assessing future alternatives and observing great need for change. Voters need better access to information concerning the actions of their legislative representatives and this report is an effort to improve that access. Voting records tell a portion of the story. Ten bills were assessed from each chamber to illustrate the 2009 pattern of voting by members of your legislature. All bills were closely followed by AAUW-ND and NDWN. Each bill directly relates to issue positions of both organizations.
We offer this voting record with the belief that when you increase your knowledge base regarding legislative voting records, you will be compelled to stay informed on issues, hold your legislators accountable to you as a constituent, and work to assure policy makers are elected that serve North Dakota women and are responsive to issues of importance to the women of North Dakota.
Renee Stromme
Executive Director
North Dakota Women’s Network
Connie Hildebrand
Public Policy Chair
American Association of University Women – North Dakota
Special thanks to our allied organizations for their valuable contributions: Mitch Marr from ND Human Rights Coalition; Amy Jacobson of Planned Parenthood MN, ND, SD; Paul Griffin on behalf of the Affordable Housing Fund Alliance; Sandy Tipke of the Children’s Caucus; Paul Ronningen of National Association of Social Worker-ND and Children’s Defense Fund; and Janelle Moos from the North Dakota Council on Abused Women’s Services.
Download the Voting Record Table
Summary of Twelve Bills from ND 61st Legislative Assembly (Ten in each Chamber)
Equity
2194: Expanding the Governor’s Commission on the Status of Women
Senate Bill 2194 was introduced by Senator JoNell Bakke to expand the role of the Governor’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). Initiated after a long and fairly unsuccessful effort of women’s advocacy groups to gain more action out of the current CSW, the bill attempted to change the way members were appointed and the issues addressed. For many years the Commission has not meet statutory requirements through regular meetings or full appointment. SB2194 would have created a mechanism to ensure a more active Commission.
Women and Civil Rights groups testified in favor of 2194 and gave numerous reasons to support the changes and the positive impact such a change would have on the state. All supporters stated that they felt a robust CSW would be instrumental in improving the status of women in North Dakota. Those opposing the bill included the current chair of the Commission along with Concerned Women of America. The Chair stated she did not see a need for the change, while the lobbyist for Concerned Women of America feared discussions of women’s health would become state sponsored support for abortion. The legislation was significantly hindered by an unreasonable fiscal note place on the bill by the Department of Health. Efforts to amend the fiscal note were not accepted.
The bill came out of committee without recommendation. Numerous Senators stood in support of the bill. One questioned the intent of the fiscal note. Only one Senator spoke in opposition claiming the CSW was a productive entity. The bill failed in the Senate 20-25.
2278: Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination Laws
Introduced by Senator Tom Fiebiger, SB 2278 would have amended the North Dakota State Human Rights Act and Fair Housing Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the list of protected classes in North Dakota. If passed, it would have prohibited discrimination in housing, employment, public services, public accommodations and credit transactions or lending.
The current list of protected classes includes sex, race, color, national origin, religion, age (40 or older), presence of a disability, familial status, marital status, receipt of public assistance or engaging in lawful activity off the employer’s premises during non-working hours which is not in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.
In passing SB 2278, North Dakota would have joined 20 other states in protecting the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual citizens; thirteen of those 20 include protections for gender identity. The bill was primarily concerned with employment and housing rights. While SB 2278 enjoyed wide public support, it faced opposition primarily from leaders of the House with religious objections, the North Dakota Catholic Conference, the North Dakota Family Alliance, and Concerned Women of America. Although quite inaccurate, the most oft-cited objection was that the bill would infringe upon religious freedom. The bill was drafted and ultimately amended to address that specific concern, but to no avail.
The North Dakota Senate voted to pass SB 2278 by a vote of 27-19 on February 18, 2009. Unfortunately, the bill failed in the House with a 34-54 vote on April 3, 2009.
Reproductive Rights
1445: Additional Requirements for Informed Consent for Abortion
Introduced by Representative Damschen, Heller, Hunksor, Lisa Meier and Senators Christmann and Klein, HB 1445 required a woman be told she will be “ending the life of a whole, separate, living human being” before obtaining an abortion. Additionally, the bill defined life as beginning with fertilization.
Groups in favor of the legislation included ND Right to Life, the Catholic Conference, ND Family Alliance, and Concerned Women of America. The stated goal was to change at least one woman’s mind about continuing with her plans to obtain an abortion. All groups stated they did not believe women knew what they were doing when getting an abortion.
Planned Parenthood of MN, ND, SD and NDWN testified in opposition expressing concern with the burden of informed consent as well as with the lack of effect the language will have on addressing women’s needs regarding reproductive health. Additional concern in regards to defining life beginning at fertilization was shared with the Human Services Committee. Two high school students and a teacher gave spontaneous testimony in opposition to the bill expressing incredulity that proponents felt women did not know what they were doing when obtaining an abortion.
The bill came out of the House Human Services Committee with an 8-5 Do Pass recommendation and it passed the House 61-31. The bill was placed in the Senate Judiciary Committee where it came out with a 3-2 Do Pass recommendation (the missing committee member would have made it a 3-3 vote and therefore without recommendation). The Bill passed the Senate 34-11. The Governor signed HB1445 on April 21, 2009.
1572: Constitutional Rights to “Organisms”
HB 1572 had the unusual distinction of having one sponsor, Representative Dan Ruby. The bill was introduced as a radical, lengthy and confusing piece of legislation looking to ban abortion in multiple forms. Included in potential implications of the bill was that chemical birth control was defined as abortion. In the hearing at the House Human Services Committee the entire bill was resubmitted by Representative Ruby as a bill to extend all constitutional rights to any “organism with the genome of homo sapiens”.
The House Committee hearing was filled with lengthy testimony from supporters of the bill who passionately want to end abortion without exception. The North Dakota Women’s Network and Planned Parenthood of MN, ND, SD provided brief testimony in opposition to the bill. Neither group had seen the amended version when testifying. 1572 came out of committee with a 7-6 Do Not Pass recommendation. On the House floor Representative Ruby misrepresented the bill stating it would not ban abortion, but simply define when life begins. The bill surprisingly passed the House 51-41.
When sent to the Senate, 1572 was assigned to the Judiciary Committee. A strong coalition was put together among ND Women’s Network, Planned Parenthood of MN, ND, SD; AAUW-ND; ND Council on Abused Women’s Services; League of Women Voters; multiple individuals; and supportive national organizations who worked diligently to defeat 1572. The hearing on the bill included solid opposition testimony in reference to the many medical, legal and personal problems the bill would cause. It was duly noted that traditional “pro-life” groups such as the Catholic Conference did not support the bill. In fact, the state’s Bishops held a press conference prior to the Senate hearing expressing the reasons they would not support the bill, including the lack of exceptions in the legislation.
The Senate Judiciary Committee gave a unanimous Do Not Pass recommendation which led to failure of the bill by a vote of 16-29 on April 3, 2009.
2287: Medicaid Family Planning Waiver
Senate Bill 2287 directed the North Dakota Department of Human Services to apply for a Medicaid waiver for the extension of Medicaid-allowable family planning services. The bill was introduced by Senators Krebsbach, Fiebiger and Nelson as well as Representatives Ekstrom, Hawken, and Nottestad.
Since 1993, 27 states have instituted some form of the program, known as a Medicaid “waiver” to expand eligibility for family planning services to certain individuals who do not meet the state’s regular Medicaid eligibly requirements. Family planning includes: physical assessment and health screening, annual exams, pap smears, cervical cancer screening, testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, and contraceptive care. Family planning services reduce poor pregnancy outcomes including infant mortality, low birth-weight, and maternal mortality,
Implementation of the Medicaid Waiver in the state of North Dakota was projected to expand the number of women covered by 6,000 annually; averting 900 unintended pregnancies, 400 abortions and 400 Medicaid funded births. The program was projected to annually save the state of North Dakota $1.7 million.
The bill was heard in the Senate Human Services Committee where a variety of organizations including the NDWN, the March of Dimes, and family planning providers testified in support. The bill received no oppositional testimony. On the Senate floor argument against the bill stated the department lacked experience and staff to carry out the application process. In reality, the Department of Health has ample experience and a modest fiscal note was included to cover the staff time. SB 2287 was defeated on the floor of the Senate 20-27.
Economic Security
HB 1259, introduced and sponsored by Representatives Keiser, Hatlestad, and Onstad and Senator Mathern, would have created an Affordable Housing Fund of $10 million (2009-2010 biennium) to be administered by the Housing Finance Agency, supervised by the Industrial Commission and used for loans, grants, subsidies and guarantees for the development of affordable housing projects and initiatives across North Dakota.
The bill was the culmination of months of “grassroots” efforts by the North Dakota Affordable Housing Fund Alliance (AHFA), a state wide coalition made up of over 30 private, governmental and non-profit organizations, concerned citizens and consumers that banded together as a result of their experience in dealing with the unmet housing needs. The bill was supported by significant research and extensive data substantiating the current and growing needs for workforce housing, affordable home ownership and rental opportunities, accessibility and safety concerns, increasing numbers of homeless (individuals, veterans, and families), the specific needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities, and others. Because HB 1259 would have been state-funded and controlled, it would have provided a “North Dakota-based, directed and supervised” opportunity to address the unique and specific needs of North Dakotans in rural and urban areas without the sometimes onerous eligibility requirements and restrictions dictated by federal policy.
Although strongly supported by the testimony and contacts of the AHFA members and others, and without specific testimony or information opposing it, the bill received a “Do Not Pass” recommendation from the House Government and Veteran Affairs Committee.
On February 19th, HB 1259 was debated on the floor of the House of Representatives and ultimately failed to pass (39 Yeas, 54 Nays, 0 Excused, 1 Absent and Not Voting). During that debate, a speaker in opposition to the legislation stated that other funding sources are available to fill the need proposed in the legislation. While technically true, the options that were cited are limited either in the eligible activities that they can fund or by the regulatory burdens placed upon their funds. In addition, most of these programs are temporary in nature and do not support a long-term solution to North Dakota’s problems.
1418: Childcare Quality Improvement
HB 1418 was introduced by Rep. Hawken, Martinson and Mueller and Senators Fiebiger, Kresbach and Wardner. The bill passed with bipartisan support in the Senate by a vote of 41-5 and in the House by 77-15.
The original bill focused on state investment in the child care work force using technical assistance and training, and created a Quality Improvement Rating Scale which had been developed in the interim through a collaborative process. The final bill looked quite different and included roughly $3.5 million in federal stimulus support. State dollars were not appropriated in this bill.
This bill targeted building and sustaining quality programs that children need and parents cannot easily find. It included supports for the child care workforce together with professional training and scholarship programs – the on-going tools needed to raise the quality of childcare education programs.
Whether in a childcare facility or family home facility, all caregivers need access to training and education that is affordable. Programs need support to give salary enhancements and make improvements to meet the needs of our youngest children. This bill linked childcare with licensing regulations, training and professional development, and resources for parents, such as Child Care Resource and Referral.
The original bill was a collaborative two year effort by the entire Early Childhood field called the Growing Futures Project. There are concerns that the final bill does not include a quality rating system. Without the rating system there is no accountability for the money poured into training and quality improvement programs. The legislation is a start in the right direction.
Health
1478: Children’s Health Coverage
House Bill 1478 was introduced as a “public policy bill” that proposed to increase the number of children covered by the North Dakota Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) by raising the cap on eligible family income to 200% of the federal poverty level, up from the current cap of 150% . This bill would have provided health care coverage for an additional 1,158 children of the currently 14,000 uninsured children from working poor families. Unfortunately, due to ideological fear this bill would open the door to government-controlled medicine, these children will be denied the coverage their families desperately need.
Initially, things looked bright for HB 1478. Governor John Hoeven’s budget included the coverage for children in families making up to 200% of the poverty level. The ND Senate passed this bill and the Conference Committee between the House and Senate agreed to the increase, knowing for every state dollar spent on CHIP the federal government matches with three dollars.
However, many House Republicans rejected the proposed cap of 200% and instead supported a smaller increase in eligibility to 160% of poverty level. They defeated this bill 47 to 41 with six members not voting.
Money was not the issue according to Representatives opposed to the increase. In fact, the House passed this bill with an extra $2.2 million in funding beyond what would be needed if the cap was set at 200% of the federal poverty level. Instead, Representatives stated they were driven by philosophical opposition to what they claim is “socialized medicine”. Consequently, North Dakota continues to have one of the lowest eligible income caps, and we still have approximately 14,000 children from low-income families with no health care coverage.
2283: Medicaid Eligibility Increase for Pregnant Women
Introduced by Senator Taylor (D-ND), the legislation proposed an increase of Medicaid eligibility for pregnant women from 133 percent of the federal guidelines (an individual income not exceeding $13,034 per year) to 200 percent ($20,800 annual income for an individual).
The average cost of low-risk pregnancy prenatal care and delivery is $7,600 (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004). Currently 385 pregnant women in North Dakota are not receiving prenatal care, due to high costs of prenatal and delivery expenses. NDWN and the March of Dimes provided testimony in favor of the increase in committee hearing.
The Senate Human Services committee gave unanimous support for the increase with a Do Pass recommendation; however the Senate Appropriations gave an 8-6 Do NOT Pass recommendation. In order to save the bill, Senator Taylor amended the bill on the Senate floor, increasing the coverage from 133 percent to 165 percent. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 45-1 on February 19, 2009.
Additional advocacy groups provided support testimony in the House Human Services committee without any opposition, but the committee gave a Do Not Pass recommendation by a vote of 8-5 citing cost as the issue. On April 3, 2009 the House failed to pass the bill by a vote of 40-49.
2394: Allowing Minors to Obtain Confidential Prenatal Care
SB2394 as introduced by Senator Krebsbach on behalf of the North Dakota Medical Association (NDMA), proposed to allow a physician to rely on the consent of a minor for pregnancy testing, prenatal care and pain management related to pregnancy. Similar legislation has been introduced in previous sessions, but routinely failed.
The Senate passed SB 2394, by a vote of 40-7. A proposed amendment by the ND Family Alliance to limit the application of the bill was rejected by the Senate Human Services Committee. The ND Family Alliance is the only organization that testified in opposition. Drs. Shari Orser and Jerry Obritsch and members of NDWN testified in the earlier hearing in support of the bill.
In the House Human Services Committee hearing, additional support was provided by Carrie Grosz of Bismarck School’s Homeless Youth Program. Ms. Grosz’s testimony provided the information needed to gain support from legislators traditionally opposed to the legislation. Opposition testimony was provided by groups concerned about rights of pregnant minors’ parents. That testimony lacked any consideration for young girls whose parents were either absent or unreasonably unsupportive. The bill was amended by the House Human Services Committee and received a 12-0 "Do Pass" recommendation. The amendments limited the number of prenatal visits a physician may have with a minor without parental consent. While the new version did not address all that the bill set out to accomplish, the final passage of the bill in the House by 64-27 was a positive outcome. The Senate conceded to the amendments and the bill was signed by the Governor on April 22, 2009.
Education
1171: Home School Deregulation
Introduced by Representative Bette Grande (R-41) the bill reduced the parental supervision qualification for home education supervision from a baccalaureate degree, to a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma (GED).
In addition, Section 3 of the bill authorized any parent, regardless of educational level, to supervise home education provided he/she, “be monitored for the first two years.”
The bill also eliminated, in Section 1, the requirement that education be supervised in the child’s home. The interpretation of the elimination of this “phrase” in ND law is unknown, however it could, potentially, allow group education of children in a wide variety of community and/or religious facilities.
Deregulation of ND home school supervision qualifications does immense damage to provision of a quality education. Such a law change undercuts a strong system of public education that promotes gender fairness, equity, and diversity.
The Senate passed the home school deregulation bill by a vote of 27-20, as amended, on April 6, 2009. The House concurred by a vote of 51-38 on April 10, 2009. On April 22, 2009, this legislation was signed into law by Governor Hoeven.
1335: Income Tax Deduction for Home School
The House considered Representative Chris Griffin’s bill (D-19) to allow an income tax deduction for taxpayers who provide home education for their children. It was defeated on February 18, 2009, in the House by a vote of 37-57 upon a 13-7 Do Not Pass recommendation of the House Appropriations Committee.
This bill would have provided a reduction in income tax up to $2000 for each dependent of the taxpayer who received home education. The amount of the reduction would have been reduced by 50% for a dependent child who received home education for less than the entire school year.
Use of public funds for nonpublic elementary and secondary education is unacceptable because a quality public education is the foundation of a democratic society. Instead women’s groups advocate “adequate and equitable funding for quality public education for all students.”
Sometimes creatively referred to as scholarships-certificates-choice programs-tuition tax credits or tax relief, recent voucher-funding schemes are all opposed because it has shown to undercut equitable school funding. The state should provide an excellent education for all children, and not provide taxpayer support/relief for those who select private or home-school education.
The House Appropriations Committee and the ND House chose to defeat this legislation, whose only achievement would be to weaken the public education structure of the state of ND.
Freedom from Violence
Although not included in the bills listed in the voting record table, there were numerous bills addressing violence against women in the 2009 session that enacted enhanced protections for victims and created additional layers of accountability for offenders.
Domestic Violence: SB2171 allows a victim of domestic violence to terminate a lease agreement without penalty or liability due to fear of domestic violence when a protective order is in place. Additional protections in the law include restrictions on disclosure of tenant’s information by a landlord. Finally, a landlord may not refuse to rent a property to a person because the tenant exercised the right to terminate a lease under the new law.
HB1291 allows the court to order electronic home detention or global positioning system monitoring as a condition of release on an individual charged or arrested for a crime involving domestic violence. This option covers individuals who violate a domestic violence protection order or an order prohibiting contact.
Sexual Assault: HB1272 adds coercion, which means “to exploit fear or anxiety through intimidation, compulsion, domination, or control with the intent to compel conduct or compliance,” to the sex offense chapter. The new law expands the options for sexual assault prosecution in a manner which recognizes the level of control often seen in sex offenses.
SB2216 allows health care facilities to request reimbursement for medical pre- screening in addition to the acute forensic medical exam of criminal investigations. Payments will now also be available for non-acute children’s exams. These medical exams are traditionally the evidence collection tools used in sexual assault crimes. The change in law ensures victims of sexual assault will not incur the expenses of evidence collection.
In addition to approving these added protections and layers of accountability, the legislature approved a $1 million dollar appropriation to the North Dakota Department of Health to provide grants to the 21 domestic violence and rape crisis centers across the state (SB2230). The amount originally sought through the bill was $5 million, but the amount was reduced through appropriation discussions. These funds will provide the crisis centers some of the resources needed to provide more comprehensive, prevention based services in communities throughout North Dakota.
The House and Senate overwhelmingly approved these and other bills related to violence against women this session. There was certainly extended discussion and compromise work to achieve this level of consensus, but the process demonstrated the universal support for women’s safety.
