Glen Biegel: Vote for candidates who are pro-life and will help slow down the abortion machine


After I endorsed Nick Begich for U.S. Congress, I received a panicked call from a relative.  “Nick is not pro-life!  People are saying YOU aren’t pro-life!”  

Let’s discuss the election to replace the late Congressman Don Young by answering these questions: Are you pro-life? Am I? Is Sarah Palin? Is Nick Begich?  

When I endorsed Nick over Sarah, it was a close decision. I didn’t denigrate Sarah in my endorsement, and I don’t do that now. Using ranked choice voting, we will need to consider the best character traits from each acceptable candidate, and rank one first, and the other second.  Never make a ranked choice vote for the party of inflation, death, fatherlessness, violent protest and fear; the Democrats.  

Are you pro-life?  I have found many who say the only candidate who is pro-life is for government intervention to prevent 100% of abortions. They say, if your candidate is only for government intervening on behalf of the child 99.5% of the time (excluding rape and incest), then your candidate is not pro-life. Is this reasonable?

Am I pro-life? I have nine children. I have sat on the board of Alaska Right to life for 13½ years. While on the board, I ran for office against someone we had endorsed, who backtracked on their pledge and voted to publicly fund abortion. Life is a sifting issue for me for political candidates. You can be right on every other issue, but if you will fund abortion, vote against parental or informed consent or are pro-choice, then you will not get my vote. Let’s agree that I may be pro-life, and see if we can cover any remaining ground together.  

Sarah Palin is pro-life. Her last child was diagnosed as special needs in the womb, she knew it, and gave that baby life anyway.  

Is Nick pro-life? Well, put it this way, is any imperfect person capable of advancing the fight against abortion? I offer three experiences to support my ‘Yes’ answer.  1. When I was on the board of Alaska Right to Life, did we actually save any babies and how did we do it? 2. How do those in D.C. stop some abortions?  3. Does God use imperfect people to accomplish good works and therefore should we? 

Did Alaska Right to Life save babies? In the late 1990s, with massive Republican majorities, we had elected enough ‘pro-life’ Republicans that they stopped public funding of abortion (elective abortions performed with Medicaid dollars). Only 20% of these Republicans were against abortion 100% of the time. Still, with these imperfect people’s votes, over 1,000 babies were saved in those two years and are still among the living. Unlike the view that we must only elect people who will ban all abortions, in Alaska, we’ve never voted to ban all abortions, but we still saved 1,000 children.

How does this principle apply to federal candidates? Here’s an interesting fact: Alaska Right to Life organized its 70,000 members to vote in a weak Democrat in the Democrat’s open primary in 1980 (thereby removing Sen. Mike Gravel from office)  This allowed Frank Murkowski to be elected in the general election. Frank had promised to vote pro-life to our board for that assistance, and had a 100% pro-life voting record while in D.C. 

Frank Murkowski never had the opportunity to ban abortion outright. However, he did save thousands of babies by voting on the Hyde Amendment, restricting public funding of abortion, and preventing the U.S. from funding pro-abortion groups or providing abortions overseas. This is the primary D.C. “pro-life” legislation. He supported originalists for the Supreme Court who may finally be ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, and return the abortion issue to the States.  

What about God? God does not require perfect people to accomplish good. The Bible is full of imperfect people doing God’s will. As no one is perfect except Jesus, there is no Biblical foundation for only working with 100% perfect people to accomplish good. Since our world is fallen, we must accept imperfect solutions to the world’s problems when that is the best we can do today.

Saving babies is a complicated process. If you are involved in the life movement for any length of time, you know this. We pray, counsel, picket, instruct, and try to find candidates who will help save at least some children while in the womb and care for them afterwards. When you understand how some abortions are prevented, you might find out that an absolute position on abortion assists the abortion industry. Allow me to explain this fully.

Abortion in the U.S. is like a powerful machine. Picture this machine having a large tilted plane with 3,000 unborn children placed into it. Each day, the machine’s plane plunges into water, drowning and thereby ending the lives of those children. Some of the children are very close to the surface. If the tilted plane didn’t go down quite as far in the water, a child near the surface would be saved from drowning. Some are on the deep end of the plane, and die well below the water’s surface. We elect politicians to adjust the machine’s depth.  

Today, the Democrats are in charge, and 3,000 more babies are loaded into the machine. There is no prevention of the plane plunging into the water: 3,000 die. We have an election at the end of the day, and a candidate says, “I am the critical vote to end public funding of abortion, but I am not going to force giving birth on a woman who was raped. If s/he was elected, then the next day, the killing machine would only plunge 50% of the way into the water, and 1,500 would be saved.  

When you say, “I will only support a candidate if they are 100% pro-life,” you are acting in pride, and not prudence. The abortion machine does not have an off button. We have never voted to ban all abortions in the U.S. at the federal level. By any measure of public will, we never will. When you say, “I value ALL those babies”, in ranked choice voting, you are also saying, “If we can’t save them all, we shall save none of them. Those are the only two results that my worldview will accept. I wash my hands.” 

What does it mean to vote pro-life? There are regular votes to prevent funding, provide support for judges who will end the travesty of Roe, ensure conscience clauses, protect religious liberty, etc. Voting pro-life starts with the understanding that EACH individual baby, as well as all of them, is infinitely precious.

If Christ would leave his flock for the sake of the one sheep, how can we deny our duty to save at least one? Our vote requires prudence and accepts that God did not give us a perfect on/off world. He gave us this messy world that requires us to work with the less than perfect people to do at least some good.  

Practically speaking for Washington D.C., Nick and Sarah are both pro-life. Nick has promised me that he does not support public funding, he publicly opposes abortion in all cases, but will not vote to mandate the outcome when the woman faced rape or incest. Nick or Sarah will have many votes on the life issue, like the Hyde Amendment, thereby helping stop the abortion machine from plunging so deeply each day. If enough pro-life Republicans are elected, they will save lives.

In conclusion, If you don’t vote for BOTH Nick and Sarah, and a Democrat is elected, the abortion machine will continue to plunge 3,000 more children to their deaths each day.  I believe we will all be judged on prudent votes to save at least some of these children.  Please accept these two candidates are sufficiently pro-life, and keep in mind the babies we can save when discerning how to vote.  Life is complicated.  Voting to save lives, moreso.

Question: Would you only accept a candidate who will end 100% of crime, 100% of hunger, 100% of homelessness, 100% of fatherlessness; but never have that vote? Or do you support tough-on-crime legislators who accept a reduction of 50% of crimes vs. pro-crime, anti-police candidates on the other side? The idea that the world has an off-switch for sorrow, pain and evil is one of the great errors of many conservatives, and many people I call friends.

Glen Biegel is a talk show host and cyber security professional in Anchorage.


    • Without life, there are no other issues – no energy production, no so-called climate change, no gun control, nothing. Life is the crucible in which all other issues are created.

      Well said, Glen.

  1. Question for the author: would you be willing to vote Chris Constant or Berky if they pinky sweared to be pro life?

    How much are you willing to give away on the vague chance a politician will actually honor a campaign pledge? Josh Revak, Cathy Giessel, and Bill Walker all want to know.

    Hinging a vote on single issue politics is reckless.

    • Life is a critical issue, but certainly not the only one. When George Weurch was running for office, I was on his core team. We were in a meeting where he was decrying the police recruiters. He railed against them explaining he demanded a full police academy twice a year. Anything they wanted to make that happen. He gave police pay raises and concessions in negotiations. The two recruiters gave Weurch 14 officers (half of a full academy) only once per year, saying that they ‘couldn’t find qualified candidates.’ After Begich was elected, they had two full academies.
      Democrats have a lot to answer for. The life issue is important, but by no means sufficient to ensure a vote, especially as they will organize with other pro-abortion democrats and their beliefs will never be tested. As I said in the piece, never vote for the party of Death, inflation, fatherlessness, etc.

    • I am a ‘Single-Issue’ voter and have been my whole life. My ‘single issue’ is Constitution, Life, Guns and Fiscal Responsibility. It seems ironic that 99.9999% of the candidates I’ve supported, are on the same page when it comes to these issues. Eg: a strong gun rights advocate is almost ALWAYS pro life and visa versa. A genuine Constitutionalist is always pro gun, pro life, etc.

  2. Yes, I totally agree. I would have supported Tara Sweeney in the special congressional race, except her campaign ads all referred to “my people,” and “Native Corporation backing.” She disenfranchised 10’s of thousands of non-Natives with those ads. The ads made her sound racist against white or non-Native Alaskans.

    • That statement about supporting Native Co-ops… isn’t exactly make me NOT choose her BUT IT WAS the fact she was STILL for abortion, BUT NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDED abortions. so.. with that.. I had to exclude her on my list.

  3. I agree with the article. For me it starts with pro-life. Pass that hurdle and we can then discuss the rest. If you are not pro-life how can you possibly consider other important political issues with logical and moral clarity of what the people you represent want, when the basic right to life isn’t foremost in your mind? If you consider abortion as acceptable for convenience or as a a method of birth control your compass is broken and you will never get my vote no matter what the rest of your political platform is.

  4. We got where we are today by accommodating RINOs and “compromisers” who are less than 100% conservative. No thanks!

    • The goal is always 100%. Football games are won one yard at a time. To say every play that doesn’t score is a loser totally loses sight of the goal line. Glen is wisely saying: “Move the ball towards the goal line. If you don’t, you’re going to lose the game” (at least that’s how I read his piece)

  5. Well written. I believe that there is a word to describe people who have an all or nothing approach to issues. Being prior military, I understand that it takes many small battles to win a war. In a perfect world, this would be no issue. In the meantime, we must think with love. The whole issue should not be so politicized, and filled with hatred. We are talking about human lives, and who has the power to take them, and should you personally pay a person for the privilege. Rape and incest cases are definitely worthy of special consideration, not just bad planning. There’s to many factors to get 100% from anyone on this issue.

      • Ken, instead of your unsubstantiated innuendo implying Nick is a false Republican, why don’t you just ask him yourself? You are exercising very poor taste in mud slinging.

      • Sorry Rich He admitted He did! He answered that question in Palmer. So maybe you should check your facts

    • He did support Ethan for Mayor. It’s a hard thing to understand given the clarity he has on every issue. I am satisfied that his support for Ethan was some issue with Amy, and doesn’t reflect a foundational position. Hundreds of other conservatives also view that support as an anomaly, and not a determinative factor. Give Nick a listen, and see if he can show you how solid he is. I hope you can at least select Nick as your second vote on the ranked choice ballot. If not, we may not keep this seat. I’m praying that this piece makes a difference for those who are purists for any ‘one-error and I’m done with you’ voters.

    • Bad thought Frank. We really don’t want to murder the children of thoughtless, selfish leftists. Rather, our goal would be to raise those children in foster homes to know the light of our Savior.

  6. Thanks Glen. I objected to your equivocation about Nick Begich early in the article, but then you went to great lengths to explain the nuance and acquitted Nick. Having spoken with Nick about life issues, I can assure everyone he IS pro-life, and realistic about what can be accomplished now with the ultimate goal in sight and mind.

  7. Pro-life is a corny term. Leftists believe they are prolife regarding capital punishment; but they fail to see capital punishment actually saves more lives than it takes. Those opposed to abortion should be referred to as anti-murder. Remember, capital punishment saves lives; no abortion ever saved a life.
    Pro-choice is also a corny term. Conservatives believe pro-choice means allowing women to choose not to become pregnant in the first place. Leftists draw their line in a morally-deficient manner; that is, choosing to avoid a pregnancy after the fact by murdering an unborn child.

  8. Who taught religious nutters to type? If you’re not a religious nutter the sanctity of life is an esoteric concept at best and more important things like ‘what kind of a tomorrow are you building’ come to the fore. Consider that Ms. Sanger was offering a service focused on societal detritus and that if you want society to be even more of a hairball in 20 years just force the demographic that currently utilizes Ms. Sanger’s services to stop.

    Uninvested parenting? That’s them.

    Irresponsible breeding, drug use, promiscuity and the balance of traits that go along w/ a liberal view? That’s them, too.

    You are hoping that the progeny of society’s trash are given a middle class upbringing and that’s very short sighted. Sterilize them after using the service more than once, etc. but don’t assume that you’re nutbar ideas about a sky god and morality have any basis in reality, science, or what’s best for humanity.

    How many of your 9 kids of are adopted? Please tell us that it’s at least 7 of ’em as it would be irresponsible to think that America’s future needs your seed. Any of ’em black babies, crack babies, or FAS kids… or are those just ones you pray for? Since you brought it up, how many Trigs have you adopted?

    This perspective is from the same kind of religious goof that believes we all go to a better place when we die but is also a big fan of seatbelts because you juuust can’t be too sure. Be that as it may, can we agree that anyone who’s hero is a bronze age version of spiderman may not be a bastion of rational thought and choosing to pollute future generations by supporting the exponential growth of societal waste is an example of muddled thought by any standard.

    Mr. Biegel, how many of your 9 children are adopted severely disabled and/or special needs children and how deeply do you rely upon the largess of gov’t or others to nurture them?

  9. It should be borne in mind, and it often isn’t by the pro-life constituency, that there is very little that anyone who doesn’t sit on the Alaska Supreme Court can do about abortion law in Alaska. The USSC’s reversal of Roe v. Wade and its progeny will have no effect in Alaska because the federal privacy right created in Roe is not the basis of Alaska law; Alaska has an explicit, articulated right to privacy in our Constitution.

    Sweeping change in Alaska abortion law would require a Constitutional amendment limiting or eliminating the Constitutional right to privacy, an amendment I would NOT support. Pro-life constituencies could nibble at the edges of Alaska’s almost unlimited abortion rights with carefully crafted legislation and precise argument. In my observation most legislative attempts to limit abortion here have been heavy handed and the AKSC had no trouble dismissing the legislation as unconstittuional. The work would need a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

    • Art,
      In your view, what does the second sentence of the Alaska privacy amendment mean? The amendment reads:. “the State of Alaska recognizes an individual right to privacy. The legislature shall implement this section.”

    • Art, could not one argue in favor of the “right to privacy’ of the fetus, as well?
      And aside from privacy, does not the Alaska state constitution support the right to exist, i.e., life itself?

Comments are closed.