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.
