The Alaskan Pro-Life Battle - Personhood Initiative & Mead Treadwell

Alaska Lt. Gov. -
Mead Treadwell

Recently, a reader posted a comment on the blog asking our take on a situation that recently occurred in the State of Alaska. It has to do with the rejection by the state of a ballot iniative. The Catholic Anchor reported about it and a few of the Pro-Life websites did as well, but little analysis was done. The comment left on our blog felt that the "ball was dropped" in this case by the Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell.

The proposed initiative is what many call a "Personhood" initiative. The purpose is to establish legal protection for unborn/pre-born persons, or more correctly to create legislation that establishes "personhood" at the moment of conception. A lot of the initiatives revolve around terms and their definitions. The purpose of such initiatives is to find a way through legislation to by-pass the judicial law created by the Roe v. Wade decision. It is a very complex legal issue because so much depends on the interplay between state law and federal Constitutional law. The question the commentator was asking is what our take was on Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell's hand in this particular scenario. Here is an excerpt from their comment:

I like Mead, but he really dropped the ball on this one; one could argue he also abrogated his duties as a Catholic legislator. And yes, I know he was a big contributor to the ballot initiative in August.

But that just means that a lot of people helped him win the primary so that he could use his powers as Lt Gov to effect the same causes.

···•°···

The issue here is whether the Lt. Gov. acted properly both in his role as Lt. Gov. and as a Catholic - because he is Catholic. The latter is actually his primary duty, regardless of what Senator Lisa Murkowski thinks. So we have to look at this specific issue and this specific proposed ballot initiative and not at some theoretical or philosophical level where we are fighting over concepts and not specific sets of facts.

Therefore we should first look at the language of the proposed ballot initiative:

Click to Enlarge

Now, the wording itself is problematic. It is very vague and there is a strong likelihood that it would be overturned at the state supreme court level. The Attorney General and the Lt. Gov. felt the same way. As the Anchor reported:

Alaska’s new Attorney General John Burns said the proposed initiative for the 2012 election is unconstitutional because it would go up against the Supreme Court’s decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions under Roe v. Wade.

“The proposed bill meets the ‘clearly unconstitutional’ standard because it would supersede a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. This right is a federal constitutional right recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade,” Burns’ office said. It added that Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell should reject the measure as well.

Today, Treadwell did just that, according to the Juneau Empire.

“I was convinced the controlling case law made (the initiative) clearly unconstitutional,” Treadwell said.

···•°··· 

Now was this a "pass" as my commentator opines? Maybe, but I doubt it. The Lt. Gov. is a strong Catholic and placed his fortune and career on the line with his support of Proposal 2 this past fall. But did he "abrogate his duty as a Catholic" by not approving the measure and letting the chips fall where they may? I would argue no, and I think most Bishops would agree with me. Not only that, he might have done his Catholic duty by actually denying the certification. In fact, Archbishop Chaput of Denver, a strong Bishop known for his Catholic Natural Law writing  issued a letter regarding a very similar issue just a few years back:

Archbishop Charles Chaput

June 5, 2008


Statement of the Colorado Catholic Bishops
on the 2008 Colorado Personhood Amendment


We admire the goals of this year's effort to end abortion, and we remain committed to defending all human life from conception to natural death. As we have said from the start, however, we do not believe that this year's Colorado Personhood Amendment is the best means to pursue an end to abortion in 2008.


Unfortunately, even if this year's personhood amendment is passed in Colorado, lower federal courts interpreting this amendment will be required to apply the permissive 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is also likely that the Supreme Court, given its current composition, will either decline to review such a case, effectively killing the state amendment, or worse, actively reaffirm the mistaken jurisprudence of Roe. While the Church respects those promoting this personhood amendment, the Catholic Bishops of Colorado decline to support its passage because it does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortions in Colorado.
Constructive alternatives to reduce abortions and advance the ultimate objective of ending abortion, however, do exist at the state level.
...
+Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
+Most Rev. Arthur N. Tafoya, D.D.
+Most Rev. Michael J. Sheridan, S.T.D.

As they said, with such a proposal a bad court, like our state supreme court, or the Supreme Court of the United States would deny such a law, "...or worse, actively reaffirm the mistaken jurisprudence of Roe." This isn't some obscure strain of belief held by three priests in Colorado either; Nevada Life, the Georgia Bishops, Americans United for Life, and the Florida Bishops all feel the way I do. This might be the reason why Pro-Life groups in Alaska didn't support this measure.

···°•···

Is it frustrating? Yes, of course it is. I would love to have seen the Lt. Gov. certify it and say - "Let's let the courts decide." But if that happened... the victory would be short and in the end it might end up creating a platform for an even greater loss down the road. 

Does this mean that the Lt. Gov. or elected Catholic officials should weigh legislation for their chances of victory as a means to determining when they should or shouldn't support Pro-Life laws? Of course it doesn't, but this fight is too important to fight over gimmicks. The way to end abortion is to reverse the incorrect legal decision that celebrates its anniversary a few days from now: Roe v. Wade. 

Could the Lt. Gov. been more precise and clear in his explanation as to why he didn't certify this initiative? Sure he could of, but we will leave that to his press person to improve upon. It certainly would have been helpful to have him explain that as a Pro-Life elected official it is his goal is to enact laws that stem from the Natural Law and that will ultimately respect the sanctity of life, and while the Personhood initiative seems like it does just that, because it is somewhat gimmicky in its construction it is ultimately problematic.  That is why I can't fault him for his decision here. In fact, after reading the statements of Bishops on the matter I actually applaud what he did here, and so should you. 

†††