Once again, pro-abortion forces have won the day in Alaska. The latest in a long string of triumphs came on Sept. 4 when Superior Court Judge Josie Garton ruled that a state law restricting who can perform abortions imposed a “substantial burden” on the fundamental privacy rights of a women to have their unborn babies killed.
In Judge Garton’s view, Alaska lawmakers and the governor should never have passed a decades-old law that only permits a state-licensed doctor to poison or rip an unborn child to pieces.
In Garton’s estimation, this modest limitation puts an “undue” burden on the state constitutional amendment which protects the “right to privacy.”
Those who have long been fighting for Alaska’s vulnerable unborn are well-aware of the many ways this privacy clause has been twisted and contorted to thwart any and all pro-life legislation for decades.
Some pro-life advocates say we need to pass a constitutional amendment to specify that the right to privacy does not extend to abortion. This, however, is a long, expensive and uncertain strategy – and currently impossible, given that two-thirds of the narrowly-divided Alaska Legislature would have to be on board with such an amendment before rank-and-file Alaskans ever had a chance to vote on it.
Until lawmakers commit to carrying out their constitutional duty of clearly defining what the privacy clause pertains to, there is really no point in passing more pro-life laws in Alaska.
Better for lawmakers to just carry out their current constitutionally empowed duty.
You see, the privacy clause, which Alaskans approved in 1972 at the dawn of the computer age, was intended to protect Alaskans from the growing power of government surveillance and access to citizens’ personal data. The 20-word clause simply states: “The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section.”
In crafting this law, lawmakers wisely included a caveat that the Legislature (not the judiciary) “shall implement this section.” Get that? The legislature has the power to interpret exactly what the privacy clause means, and how it is implemented – not judges who have construed it to apply to a vast array of abortion practices.
Unfortunately, the Alaska Legisature has never fulfilled its legal responsibility to implement and define the parameters of the privacy clause, and this has given judges free reign to do it themselves.
A half-century after this clause was enacted, time has shown that the well-intended amendment wasn’t so effective at curtailing the surveillance state, or safeguarding personal information, but it has been used as a tool by leftist abortion radicals to crush all legislation that might interfere, delay or prohibit any type of abortion, whatsoever.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
Over the past five decades, lawmakers have attempted to enact parental consent laws, parental notification requirements and restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions. All of these measures passed, only to be quashed by judges who wielded the privacy clause as their weapon of choice.
Until lawmakers commit to carrying out their constitutional duty of clearly defining what the privacy clause pertains to, there is really no point in passing more pro-life laws or enacting regulations in Alaska. Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby know that the leftist judiciary will shoot these laws down on request, as Judge Garton did last week.
In the lead up to Nov. 5 – an election in which 50 out of 60 legislative seats are up for grabs – every self-professed “pro-life” candidate must be asked whether they would commit to defining the privacy clause so that it is abundantly clear that it cannot be used to defend abortion as a constitutionally protected right.
Until that day, the enemies of preborn babies will continue to murder the most innocent among us, regardless of what laws are passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor.
The views expressed here are those of the author.
10 Comments
Any case, person or issue that sits before Garton is looking at the face of evil. She is the worst of the worst.
I am glad that Garton rejected this nonsense driven by the Christian loonies. My body, my family and my health decisions are none of the government’s or any church’s business.
Aside from the lunacy the left feels regarding the human that is clearly alive ( I do believe life is substantiated by growth) in the womb, that infanticide is a viable option for “planned parenthood” and family planning. It would be humorous were it not for the payment that is made by the baby, the one with the least ability or capability to have a say in the matter. Of the over 52 million terminated fetuses ZERO had a say in the matter of whether the murderer was properly licensed or qualified. But its a privacy issue so we can’t discuss it openly. But those who say that they want the choice and not to have the “government” involved in their choices or decisions, should also not have the government involved in the payment of such choices. Anytime someone throws around the term government they should read people. This false insulation from government given by PPH is just that; false, since they derive a majority of their funding from government handouts.
Independent–Since 1980, the Hyde Amendment has prohibited the federal government from funding for abortions unless the life of the mother was at risk, or if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. So your claim that “government handouts” primarily fund abortions at PP is false. PP does accept regular insurance and Medicaid to pay for all other non-abortion-related procedures by PP, including routine well-woman care, PAP smears, UTI care, cancer screenings, birth control, pre-natal services, etc.
Try telling that to the HHS Dept!
Try telling that to Christians, too…Matthew 28:19-20.
How do we fire this Judge? As for your body your choice argument there is something called birth ccntrol! Or you can not have sex, have your tubes tied. I know as a Marxist you hate consequence but no one cares about you or your feelings!
Ask the Senate to introduce articles of impeachment. They have used Art. 22 to overthrow 1) the governor’s veto, 2) the power of the purse and 3) the right to legislate. ALL definitions of privacy will also have to use Art. IV, Sec 1, which says, “The jurisdiction of the courts shall be prescribed by law.” Therefore, this must be included: “This statute shall not be reviewable by the judiciary.” But anyone legislator who does any of this will quickly be … EASTMANIZED.
There are 15 legal ways to prevent pregnancy that do not include murder. Be responsible. Plan ahead.
Birth control is not 100%, even if used accurately. Women need to make decisions about their body. A viable fetus should be allowed to live, a nonviable fetus, no.
…Because? Surely you’re not suggesting “viability” is the test of humanity?
Infants outside the womb depend upon an adult to care for them in order to remain alive and grow into adulthood. By what criteria should they be allowed to live?