Alaska gubernatorial candidates and abortion

I noted the recent article about gubernatorial candidates and abortion in the ADN. It would appear that only Christopher Kurka understands the proper constitutional relationship between the three branches. My own columns in the ADN in the summer of 2019 reflected this. They also accurately predicted, more than a year beforehand, that the ACLU lawsuit against Dunleavy, demanding that the judicial administrative budget be restored, was a grotesque violation and overthrow of executive and legislative powers in line-item veto and veto override, setting the table for further usurpations by the judicial branch that might have nothing to do with abortion. Truly, if these were not impeachable offenses, nothing would be.

Libertarian candidate Billy Toien said he is anti-abortion “by sentiment” but opposes the idea of changing the Alaska Constitution’s privacy clause by amendment or convention, “because there is no telling how far something will go, no matter how it’s labeled on the front.”

Toien’s comments demonstrated an important constitutional oversight, unusual for a Libertarian. The privacy clause need not be changed at all; the parameters merely need to be statutorily defined by the Legislature, which has failed to do so. As is typical, the Legislature suffers under the false constitutional paradigm that the courts define the meaning of “privacy” under Art. 1, Sec. 22, when the amendment itself reserves this right, in cold print, to the Legislature. There is absolutely no question that this was done in 1972 by a Legislature that was fully aware of judicial abuse and usurpation. They knew that the concept of “privacy” was so open-ended that it could go anywhere, and needed to be defined by the representatives of the voters, not a case-law oligarchy of judges and lawyers.

Alaska legalized abortion in 1970, fully three years before Roe v. Wade. It contained restrictions that were tossed out by our own state judiciary under Roe’s “progeny,” or follow-up decisions. Some of them were parental consent, age limits on maternal autonomy, and gestational progress of the unborn child. That the state courts have followed suit in Roe’s progeny will be a moot point if an anti-abortion governor, awaiting a statutory repeal, might decide not to enforce the judicial dictates.

Liberals will also have another, far more important worry. They have been the principal cheerleaders for executive orders, on both the federal and state levels, during the COVID-19 crisis. Having set the table, they ought to begin contemplating about what a truly anti-abortion governor might do about the very first breath of the state constitution: “This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness …” The unborn already have property and inheritance rights, recognized by all 50 states and the federal government. Life clearly trumps all, for without life, you cannot have either property, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

An anti-abortion governor might brush aside awaiting a statutory repeal, take the natural law and Article I, Section 1 seriously, and refuse to enforce the misguided and evil legalization of abortion that Alaska’s “progressives” got away with more than 50 years ago.

Bob Bird is a radio talk-show host for station KSRM in Kenai and chairman of the Alaskan Independence Party.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.