Wednesday, October 21, 2026
Home Blog Page 911

Bob Bird: Morphing of the pro-life movement

By BOB BIRD

“We are in a real war, with real blood being shed, real lives being lost, a true genocide in our midst.”

“This is a war, a bloody war, for the soul of our country.”

“We fight not only in the temporal world, but the Powers, Thrones, Dominions, and Principalities of an evil, supernatural realm. We must arm ourselves with prayer, penance, and sacrifice.”

“Any nation that kills its children in such massive numbers, that country won’t last long.”

So went the rhetoric in the late 1970s and early 1980s when I joined the pro-life movement. I even heard it from politicians, but they mostly spoke that way in front of selected audiences. I heard it from evangelical preachers and from prolife leaders at banquets and coffee klatches. 

But as a Catholic, I was puzzled why I never heard it during Mass. When my pastor said, “Our church’s stance on this issue is well known,” I figured it was not necessary.

I noted, however, that there was an underlying dissent within the overall church and within my own parish as well. I decided that the pastor was merely being prudent and that I had better make up for him.

In Alaska, the pro-life movement was being led by evangelicals. They were eagerly trying to get Ronald Reagan elected president. For that reason and many others, I was, too. I also wanted to get rid of Sen. Mike Gravel, a liberal Democrat, and got behind the effort to oust him in the Alaska open primary of 1980 by voting for his Democratic challenger, Clark Gruening.

It worked, and the pro-life Republican Frank Murkowski breezed into the US Senate. With a Reagan landslide victory, we were on our way.

Or so we thought.

Somehow, the gravity of this issue was impossible to communicate. The media just would not give it respect. This was puzzling, for civil rights were the “in” thing for decades, and what more obvious a cause could they ask for? There were pro-life liberals, but they were dwindling in number, or becoming Reagan Democrats or outright Republicans.

The media treated the pro-life activists as somehow “emotional,” which was a another way of saying, “irrational.” They wrote sympathetically of elected mainstream conservatives, like Sen. Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, being forced to endure boring and long lectures on fetal development and abortion techniques — or worse, shocked and offended by viewing bloody slide shows.

Loud chanting at picketing events and approaches by sidewalk counselors was characterized as “intimidating women seeking a constitutionally protected right,” dangerous to the efficiency of the medical staff, etc. Crisis pregnancy centers were demonized and called “fake clinics.” They still are.

This deliberate ignoring and ridiculing of the issue was so frustrating that many of our conferences and talks centered on “How to keep the issue alive,” or “How to counteract the media lies” and even “How to get media attention,” a thing that is now impossible to imagine. Although Reagan even wrote a brief book while president, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, it was intentionally ignored or given short shrift, except within pro-life circles.

Ah, yes, “prolife circles” — as if we had our own little universe in which to operate, at least for the time being. There were many scientifically accurate, outstanding, low-budget/high-quality movies and documentaries made, such as Assignment Life, Eclipse of Reason, The Silent Scream, A Better Way, Walk America for Life, and many more. Celebrities such as Pat Boone, Charlton Heston, Jack Nicholson and Patty Duke lent their reputations.

The titanic, and unmatched in history, “March for Life” every Jan. 22, organized by ex-Marine Nellie Gray, was usually ignored by the media, the number of participants reported as low, constantly dwindling, or mostly Catholic. Pro-abortion counter-demonstrators, always fewer and merely token in number, usually received more media coverage.

This frustration brought about, almost inevitably, a pro-life response in non-violent civil disobedience, generally called “The Rescue Movement.” Using the examples of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and many others, pro-lifers were convinced, in massive numbers and from coast to coast, to blockade abortion clinics, and suffer arrest and punishment. This dovetailed nicely with regular picketing, sidewalk counseling and with the burgeoning crisis pregnancy centers which existed across the U.S. and Canada.

Civil disobedience would not be easy. Participants had to be trusted to follow a discipline that would remain peaceful, prayerful, and submissive. They had to accept the basic differences that existed between Evangelicals and Catholics, to be set aside for a common cause. They had to accept the reality of a criminal record and the real possibility of police brutality and prison terms of both short and long duration.

But this would deliver the goods, it was hoped, as to demonstrating the determination and nerve of pro-lifers and, above all, the seriousness of the abortion issue.

The frustrations due to the disdain of the mainstream media, attempting their best to call us “extremists,” “anti-choice,” “illegal,” and “violent,” were certainly disappointing but not unexpected. But the institutional pro-life movement ignored us like we were radioactive, something that evangelist Franky Schaeffer warned about in a speech before a general session of the National Right to Life Committee. This was hardest for us to accept. 

Imagine if the NAACP, in the 1960s, had joined the chorus of “white moderates” criticizing Dr. King in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. That is what was happening. Schaeffer galvanized the true zeal that underlay the movement, upset the moderates, and smoked out the tepid NRLC. Before too long, many of us viewed the NRLC and its state affiliates as either too timid to accept the next phase of the struggle, or worse, were part of the “controlled opposition.”

What are the phases of this struggle?

First, being ignored. Secondly, ridiculed. Third, hostility. Fourth, persecution. And fifth, respect, and with it … victory.

The Dobbs decision was a battle victory, not the surrender of evil. Evil is now cornered and ticked off. We have gone through stages One, Two and Three, and are now entering Stage Four. 

And as sure as day follows night, we will endure until Stage Five.

Bob Bird is chair of the Alaskan Independence Party and the host of a talk show on KSRM radio, Kenai.

Fritz Pettyjohn: The politics of abortion in 2022

By FRITZ PETTYJOHN

Sensible men, who value domestic tranquility, defer to their wives on abortion. Men like Ronald Reagan and Ron DeSantis look to the mother of their children for guidance, and Nancy Davis and Casey DeSantis had and have knowledge and insight on pregnancy, babies, and motherhood that their husbands lack.

So it is that both California Gov. Reagan and Florida Gov. DeSantis adopted reasonable positions on this vexing issue.

In 1967 Reagan signed the California Therapeutic Abortion Act, which allowed abortions when there was a grave threat to the mother’s health, or in cases of rape or incest.

Earlier this year DeSantis signed legislation which allows abortion until the 16th week of pregnancy, or when there is a credible threat to the mother’s health. The law of Florida satisfies neither the pro-abortion zealots on the one hand, nor the pro-life absolutists on the other. It represents the middle ground, where most American women, particularly married women, are found.

The Democrats say they want abortion front and center in our politics, but they will rue the day that happens. The Democratic Party is in thrall to the rabid progressive left, which accepts no limits, however reasonable, on “a woman’s right to choose.” The Florida law, a compromise which takes effect next week, doesn’t satisfy them. 

It will soon dawn on Democrats that they need not look to the Supreme Court for the abortion protections they demand. All they need to do is pass a law. They control Congress and the presidency. Nancy Pelosi probably has the votes right now to pass a law legalizing abortion in all 50 states. It’s doubtful the Senate would go along, but this only sets the stage to make the election of 2022 a referendum on abortion. 

Democrats will lose that election, and they will lose on the issue of abortion. After the Dobbs decision, as Americans are finally allowed to vote on this question, most voters are conflicted. They don’t like abortion, but they also understand it’s necessary under certain circumstances. The new Florida law is as close to a consensus position as is possible.

In practice, Florida will soon become a sanctuary state for women in the deep South who live in states with draconian restrictions on abortion. From Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas, women who want an abortion in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy will be able to drive to Florida for the procedure. This will horrify some in the pro-life community, who will criticize DeSantis for signing a law allowing it. He will be criticized by both extremes, which is precisely where a smart politician wants to be as he contemplates a run for the White House.

Most Republicans believe in tolerance, diversity, and the federalism which promotes it. Once they again control Congress and the Presidency, they will not pass a federal law taking the issue away from the states, and the people. That’s where these issues should be decided, in conformity with the wishes of a majority of each state. That’s how democracy works. Republicans are comfortable with that. Democrats aren’t.

In Alaska, the state Supreme Court would invalidate a law such as Florida’s. So Gov. Dunleavy has promised to introduce a constitutional amendment which would allow it.  As he well knows, the 27 votes in the House, and 14 in the Senate, which would be required to propose such an amendment aren’t there. And they won’t be. 

The only recourse is to vote for a constitutional convention this November.  That convention would be able to propose such an enabling amendment.  Then the voters would have the final say.

The question for the Governor is simple.  Does he support a “yes” vote on the convention?  The voters of Alaska deserve an answer.

Fritz Pettyjohn has been married for 50 years to the mother of his three children. He served in the Alaska Legislature from 1982-1986, and is the founder and author of the Reagan Project. He started his political career knocking on doors for presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Soldotna permits drag queen shows for kids at outdoor stage next to park built for kids

Anchorage drag queen performers twerked and pranced in front of Soldotna children at the Soldotna Creek Park. The event, sanctioned by the City of Soldotna, took place June 17 during Pride Month events, which celebrate gay-lesbian-transgender lifestyles. At least a dozen children were brought to the performance by their mothers to witness the sexually provocative spectacle, while other families were in the area by happenstance.

Soldotna Creek Park has a playground with swings and slides, and a performing stage nearby. It’s the location for many community events, such as Soldotna Progress Days, Kenai River Festival, and the Wednesday Market. The park includes 2,300 feet of riverfront boardwalk and 12 sets of stairs to the river, as well as trails to the creek.

The video of a segment of the drag queen show for children is on the Must Read Alaska Facebook page.

Not everyone was happy with the overtly sexualized programming that was done on a taxpayer-funded stage. Some parents complained to the city manager, who said in an email that no laws were broken and that the people who put on the performance had filled out the appropriate paperwork.

“We administer special event bookings and park facility rentals according to an established reservation policy,” said Stephanie Queen, city manager, in a response to one parent.  “With input from our Parks + Recreation Advisory Board, staff, and the public – the policy is ultimately approved/adopted by the Soldotna City Council.”

Queen continued, “… the policy is ‘content neutral’ in that we, City staff, do not evaluate or approve the content of a private person, business, or organization’s event as part of issuing a facility rental permit.  We do require that events comply with all laws and current regulations.”

One parent told Must Read Alaska that according to the city’s rules, strippers could come down the road from Good Time Charlie’s, and if they had pasties on their private parts there would be nothing the city could do about it. He was dismayed that he cannot even take his children to the park anymore, a place that had always been safe.

“It’s morally impacting the kids,” said one parent. “I’ve already decided this is a hill worth dying on. I don’t care if it impacts my business; if my business fails, cool. This is important. This is a fight worth having and a fight worth losing a lot over.”

The Pride events in Soldotna were organized by Bridges Community Resource Network Inc., a Soldotna nonprofit that is funded primarily by government grants.

Identity Inc. — an Anchorage-based LGBTQI group that targets children for its services — organized the drag queen show in the children’s park. Identity Inc. is the group responsible for the Anchorage Drag Queen Story Hour in the Anchorage public library.

Parents taking their children to sexualized drag queen shows is becoming normalized on the Left. In Anchorage, a gay candidate for state House took his son to a drag show and bragged about it on Facebook.

In Dallas, Texas earlier this month, a drag show for kids was performed in front of a neon sign that read, “It’s not gonna lick itself.”

It’s not the first time that Kenai has had to deal with uncomfortable celebrations in the public square. In 2016, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly started allowing satanic prayers to be said as invocations at the beginning of Assembly meetings. The borough has a prayer policy that allows members of the community to sign up to offer the invocation, and a person who said she was a member of the Satanic Temple took the borough up on the offer.

Which congressional hopefuls dropped from regular primary ballot?

The withdrawal deadline for a candidate to remove his or her name from the regular primary election ballot was Saturday, June 25. Several removed their names from consideration, while 21 did not take action to drop out by the deadline.

Tara Sweeney, one of the candidates for the special primary election, did not drop out for the regular primary, and instead said she will stay on the regular primary ballot, as she intends to be a come-back candidate. She had received less than 6% of the vote.

Among those removing their names from the regular congressional race:

  • John Coghill
  • Chris Constant
  • Bill Hibler
  • Alan Gross
  • Jeff Lowenfels
  • Mikel Melander
  • Mike Milligan
  • Josh Revak
  • Adam Wool

That leaves 21 names on the regular primary ballot, including Sweeney, whose team sued the Division of Elections to have her included on the special general election ballot that would allow her to compete for the remainder of Congressman Don Young’s term, until January.

A Superior Court denied the demand from the Sweeney camp, and the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court.

Meanwhile, special general election at this point has just three candidates: Sarah Palin, Nick Begich, and Mary Peltola.

Breaking: Supreme Court says no Tara Sweeney on ballot, even with Al Gross dropping out of congressional race

The Alaska Supreme Court issued its opinion on Saturday morning, agreeing with the lower court that Alaska law does not allow Tara Sweeney to move onto the “final four” special general election ballot, just because one of the winners of the special primary election has dropped out.

The lawsuit had been brought by three surrogates for Sweeney — Alaska Native women who are shareholders in Alaska Native Corporations. The three had argued that Sweeney, as a fifth-place finisher, is entitled to be in the final four ranked-choice ballot on Aug. 16, because Ballot Measure 2 clearly intended that four people advance to the final ballot.

In many races in Alaska, there are not four people in the primary, and in some races only two people are running, thus negating the argument that the general election ballot always must have four people on it. But the justices did not make that argument or describe their reasoning for why they support the decision of the director of the Division of Elections. Gail Fenumiai had said that the statute governing elections says a candidate must drop out 64 days before the general election for the substitution provision to be applied.

This cements the congressional race into a three-way race between Sarah Palin, Nick Begich, and Mary Peltola.

The special hurry-up election is being held because Congressman Don Young died on March 18, leaving Alaska without representation in Congress. The winner of the special election will step into that role until January, when the next regular congressional representative is sworn in.

Sen. Sullivan: ‘I support the decision’ overturning Roe

For the second time in a week, U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan has separated himself from Sen. Lisa Murkowski on an important matter, this time supporting the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in overturning Roe vs. Wade, the law that created federal control over abortion law.

“I support the Supreme Court’s decision today, which returns the authority to regulate abortion ‘to the people and their elected representatives,’’ Sullivan said in a statement. Murkowski has stated she is vehemently opposed to the ruling.

“I recognize that abortion is a profoundly emotional issue upon which many Alaskans have strongly held views and serious disagreements. The decision today does not by any stretch end that debate. However, it does take the debate out of the realm of federal courts, and gives it back to the states and the people of our country, where I believe it belongs. The people and their representatives, not federal judges, are in the best position to deliberate and decide such an important issue,” Sullivan said.

“As a pro-life Catholic, I believe there is no greater gift than that of life. Going forward, I will continue to support legislation protecting the most vulnerable in society, including by expanding quality child care and opportunities for adoption. Working with all Alaskans, I will continue to focus on these issues,” he said.

Earlier this week, Sullivan voted against a bill that will allow states to create “red flag” laws, which give authorities the right to take away the firearms of citizens they deem dangerous. Murkowski voted in favor of the bill, which passed the Senate and the House and is heading for the president’s desk for a signature. President Joe Biden has indicated he is eager to sign the bill.

That pending law, approved by Murkowski and majority Democrats, appears to be in contradiction to a Supreme Court ruling this week that prohibited New York State from disallowing people to carry concealed weapons. Writing for the majority, the court ruled that courts must assess whether a gun law “is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

“Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the lead opinion. For example, jurisdictions can sustain public safety restrictions such as banning firearms from areas like schools or courthouses.

Dunleavy: Supreme Court decision creates path for Alaskans to choose life through constitutional change

 Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy issued the following statement after today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade:

“I like many Alaskans, am pro life. I also recognize that many Alaskans are pro choice. The recent decision by the Supreme Court returns the issue of abortion back to the states. 

“I believe this presents an opportunity for the people of Alaska, not a handful of elected officials or appointed judges, to decide the future of abortion in Alaska.

“I will therefore be introducing a resolution for a proposed constitutional amendment to the legislature in the next session to answer the question whether abortion shall, or not be a constitutionally protected right.

“I have always had faith in the people of Alaska to make the right decision when it comes to our constitution and protecting our fundamental rights and this issue is no different. My position on this issue  has been made clear. Alaskans should have the opportunity to make their position clear as well.”

Governor appoints Gialopsos acting commissioner of Department of Natural Resources

Gov. Mike Dunleavy appointed Akis Gialopsos acting commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Outgoing DNR Commissioner Corri Feige announced she was leaving the department earlier this month to spend more time with her family in the Lower-48.

“I know from his time on my staff that Akis Gialopsos has both the management skills, and knowledge of resource development issues to run the department effectively,” Dunleavy said.

Gialopsos currently serves as deputy chief of staff and legislative director for Governor Dunleavy. He was also chief of staff to the president of the Alaska State Senate during the 31st Alaska Legislature. Prior to that, Gialopsos served as the committee aide to the Senate Resources Committee for the 29thand 30th Alaska Legislatures.

Gialopsos is a lifelong Alaskan. Born and raised in Anchorage, he attended Gladys Wood Elementary and Dimond High School, before moving to Greece and receiving his diploma. He studied at the University of Alaska, Anchorage, where he participated in the UAA Speech and Debate Program. 

Gialopsos becomes acting commissioner effective July 1, 2022.

Congessman Charlie Crist says justices should be impeached; Pelosi, Schumer say justices lied to them

By BETHANY BLANKLEY | THE CENTER SQUARE

Democratic Congressman Charlie Crist, the former Republican governor of Florida who’s running once again as a Democrat hoping to defeat incumbent Gov. Ron DeSantis, said Friday that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached if they lied under oath during their Senate confirmation hearings.

He provided no evidence of either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh lying under oath.

Crist’s call comes after Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined in a majority U.S. Supreme Court ruling to overturn two landmark abortion cases – Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The decision returns decisions on the legality of abortion back to the states.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both Democrats, accused the conservative justices of lying without mentioning them by name.

“Today’s ruling makes clear that Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to Congress when they testified, under oath, that in their view Roe v. Wade was settled precedent,” Crist said in a Facebook post. “Perjury is a crime. If perjury is found to have occurred, the correct remedy is impeachment.”

In a joint statement, Pelosi and Schumer said in part, “Several of these conservative Justices, who are in no way accountable to the American people, have lied to the U.S. Senate, ripped up the Constitution and defiled both precedent and the Supreme Court’s reputation – all at the expense of tens of millions of women who could soon be stripped of their bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they’ve relied on for half a century.”

Three justices who voted to overturn Roe were appointed by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the U.S. Senate: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Trump’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch, “refused to take a position on Roe,” NPR reports. During his confirmation hearing in 2017, Gorsuch replied to a question posed by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., saying he “would have walked out the door” if Trump had asked him to vote to overturn Roe, NPR points out.

In 2018, Kavanaugh said in his opening remarks that Roe had been “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court,” and was “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.”

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, was joined by the three justices appointed by Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts. Alito wrote: “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

He also argued, “a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions. On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973. …

“Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.”

Trump told Fox News the ruling followed the Constitution, “giving rights back when they should have been given long ago. This brings everything back to the states where it has always belonged.”