Voting Record
  of North
 
  Dakota’s 61st
 
  Legislative
 
  Assembly
 
 
 
  Issues of Importance
  to the Women of
 
 
North Dakota
 
 
  Renee Stromme
  Connie Hildebrand
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
Volume 4, Number 1  
May 29, 2009
 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 vague 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 Workers ND and Children’s Defense Fund; and Janelle Moos from the North Dakota
Council on Abused Women’s Services.
 
 
 
SENATE Prime Sponsor Grande Hawken Damschen Leaders Ruby Bakke Fiebiger Taylor Krebsbach Krebsbach Prime Sponsor
Our Position N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Our Position
Percentage aligned
with AAUW and
Senator District Gender Party 1171 1418 1445 1478 1572 2194 2278 2283 2287 2394 NDWN position
Anderson 25 M D - + - + + + - + + + 70%
Andrist 2 M R - + - + + - + + - + 60%
Bakke 43 F D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Behm 19 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Bowman 39 M R - - - - - - - + - + 20%
Christmann 33 M R - - - + - - - + - - 20%
Cook 34 M R - + - + - - - + - + 40%
Dever 32 M R - + - + - - - + - + 40%
Dotzenrod 26 M D - + - + + + - + + + 70%
Erbele 28 M R - - - + - - - + - + 30%
Fiebiger 45 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Fischer 46 M R - + - + + + - + - + 60%
Flakoll 44 M R + + - + + - + + - + 70%
Freborg 8 M R - + - + - - + + - + 50%
Grindberg 41 M R - + - + + - + + - + 60%
Heckaman 23 F D - + - + + + + + + + 80%
Hogue 38 M R - + - + - - - + - + 40%
Holmberg 17 M R - + - + + - + + + + 70%
Horne 3 M D + + - + + + + + + + 90%
Kilzer 47 M R + - - + - - - + - + 40%
Klein 14 M R - + - + - - - + - + 40%
Krauter 31 M D + + - + + + - + + + 80%
Krebsbach 40 F R - + + + + - + + + + 80%
G Lee 22 M R - + - + - - - + - + 40%
J Lee 13 F R + + + + + - + + - + 80%
Lindaas 20 M D - + - + + + + + - + 70%
Lyson 1 M R - - - + + - + + - + 50%
Marcellais 9 M D + A A A A + A A - + 30% Absent 60%
Mathern 11 M D + + - + + + + + + + 90%
Miller 16 M R - + - + - - - + - + 40%
C Nelson 21 F D + + A + A + + + + + 80% Absent 20%
Nething 12 M R + + - + + - + + - + 70%
Nodland 36 M R - + - + - - - + - + 40%
O'Connell 6 M D + + - + + + - + + + 80%
Oehlke 15 M R - + - + + - + + - + 60%
Olafson 10 M R - + - + + - + + - + 60%
Pomeroy 27 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
T Potter 35 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Robinson 24 M D + + - + - A + + - + 60% Absent 10%
Schneider 42 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Seymour 5 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Stenehjem 30 M R - + - + - - - - - + 30%
Taylor 7 M D - + - + + A + + + + 70% Absent 10%
Triplett 18 F D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Wanzek 29 M R - + - + - - - + - + 40%
Wardner 37 M R - + - + - - - + - + 40%
Warner 4 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Final Outcome Passed Passed Passed Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed Passed Final outcome

“+” indicates a vote in agreement with NDWN & AAUW-ND

“-” indicates a vote not in line with the positions of NDWN & AAUW-ND
“A” notes that the member was absent for the vote
 
HOUSE Grande Keiser Griffin Hawken Damschen Leaders Ruby Fiebiger Taylor Krebsbach Prime Sponsor
N Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Our Position

Percentage aligned with

NDWN and AAUW
LastName District Gender Party 1171 1259 1335 1418 1445 1478 1572 2278 2283 2394 position
Amerman 26 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Bellew 38 M R - - - - - - - - - - 0%
Belter 22 M R - - - - - - - - - - 0%
Berg 45 M R - - + A - - - - - + 20% Absent 10%
Boe 9 M D + + + + + + - A + + 80% Absent 10%
Boehning 27 M R - - + + - - - - - - 20%
Boucher 9 M D + + + + - + + + + + 90%
Brandenburg 28 M R - - - + - - - - - - 10%
Carlson 41 M R - - + + - - - - - - 20%
Clark 44 M R - - - + - - - - - + 20%
Conklin 4 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Conrad 3 F D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Dahl 42 F R - - - + - + + A A + 40% Absent 20%
Damschen 10 M R - - - - - - - - - + 10%
DeKrey 14 M R - - - + - - - - - + 20%
Delmore 43 F D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Delzer 8 M R - - - - - - - - - - 0%
Dosch 32 M R - - - + - - - - - - 10%
Drovdal 39 M R + + + - - - + - - + 50%
Ekstrom 11 F D + + + + + + A + + + 90% Absent 10%
Frantsvog 40 M R + - + + - A - A A + 40% Absent 30%
Froelich 31 M D - + - + A + - - A + 40% Absent 20%
Froseth 6 M R - - - - - A - - - + 10% Absent 10%
Glassheim 18 M D + + + + + + + + + A 90% Absent 10%
Grande 41 F R - - - + - - - - - - 10%
Griffin 19 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Gruchalla 45 M D + + + + - + + + + A 80% Absent 10%
Hanson 12 M D + - + + + + + + + + 90%
Hatlestad 1 M R + + + + + - + - - - 60%
Hawken 46 F R + A + + + + + + + + 90% Absent 10%
Headland 29 M R - - - + - - - - - - 10%
Heller 33 F R A - - - - - - - - - 0% Absent 10%
Hofstad 15 M R - - + + - - - - - + 30%
Holman 20 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Hunskor 6 M D - + - + - + - - + + 50%
N Johnson 15 F R A + + + + + + + + + 90% Absent 10%
D Johnson 37 M R - - + + - - - - - + 30%
Kaldor 20 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Karls 35 F R - - - + - - - - - - 10%
Kasper 46 M R - - - + - - - - - - 10%
Keiser 47 M R + + + + - + + + - + 80%
R Kelsch 34 F R - - + + - - + - + + 50%
J Kelsh 26 M D + + + + - + - + + + 80%
S Kelsh 11 M D + + + + + + - + + + 90%
Kempenich 39 M R - - + A - - - - - - 10% Absent 10%
Kerzman 31 M D A + - + A + A - + + 50% Absent 30%
Kilichowski 16 M D + - - + - + - - + + 50%
Kingsbury 16 F R A - + + - - - - - + 30% Absent 10%
M Klein 40 M R - - - + - - - - - - 10%
Klemin 47 M R + - - + - - - - - + 30%
Koppelman 13 M R - - - + - - - - - - 10%
Kreidt 33 M R - - + + - - - - - + 30%
Kretschmar 28 M R + - + + - A - - + - 40% Absent 10%
Kroeber 12 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Martinson 35 M R + - + + - + + + + + 80%
L Meier 32 F R - - - + - + - - + - 30%
Metcalf 24 M D + + + + - + + + + A 80% Absent 10%
S Meyer 36 F D + + + + - + - A + + 70% Absent 10%
Mock 42 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Monson 10 M R - - - + - - - - - + 20%
Mueller 24 M D + + + + - + + + + + 90%
Myxter 27 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Nathe 30 M R - - - - - - - - - + 10%
J Nelson 7 M R - - - + - - + - - + 30%
Nottestad 43 M R + - + + + A + A A + 60% Absent 30%
Onstad 4 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Pietsch 22 F R - - - + + - + + - + 50%
Pinkerton 5 M D - + + + + + + + + + 90%
Pollert 29 M R - - - - - - - - - - 0%
Porter 34 M R - - + + - - + - - + 40%
L Potter 17 F D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Ruby 38 M R - - - - - - - - - - 0%
Rust 2 M R - - + - - - - - - - 10%
Schatz 36 M R - - - + - - - - - + 20%
Schmidt 7 M D A + - + + + + + + + 80% Absent 10%
Schneider 21 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Skarphol 2 M R - - - - - - - - - - 0%
Sukut 1 M R + + + + + - + - - - 60%
Svedjan 17 M R - - + - - - - - - - 10%
Thoreson 44 M R - - - + - - - - - + 20%
Thorpe 5 M D - + - + + + + + + + 80%
Uglem 19 M R - - - + - - + - - + 30%
Vig 23 M D - + + + + + + + + + 90%
Vigesaa 23 M R - + + + - - - - - - 30%
Wald 37 M R - - - + - - - - - - 10%
Wall 25 M R - - + + - - + - - + 40%
Weiler 30 M R - - - - - - - - - + 10%
Weisz 14 M R - - + + - - - - - + 30%
Wieland 13 M R - - + + - A - - - + 30% Absent 10%
Williams 25 M D - - + + - A - A A + 30% Absent 30%
Winrich 18 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Wolf 3 F D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Wrangham 8 M R - - + - - - - - - - 10%
Zaiser 21 M D + + + + + + + + + + 100%
Passed Failed Failed Passed Passed Failed Failed Failed Failed Passed Final outcome
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

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 reproductive health needs. Additional concern
regarding defining life beginning at fertilization was shared with 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
Rep. 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 joined 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

1259: Affordable Housing Fund

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.