He Said It

He_Said_It.jpegDr. Jerry Prevo, Amy Demboski and now Bernadette Wilson have been thrown under the bus for a comment that has now been verified to have been made by Ethan Berkowitz.  

The bottom line is that Ethan Berkowitz chose to malign others for something he himself said. 

If he wanted to clarify his intentions, he could have and should have done so.  Instead, he chose not to and in fact had many people thinking he never actually said it.  He wouldn't "dignify" the question. People were below him for even insinuating that he said such a thing.

Own it Ethan. Defend yourself. Voters deserve that.

Add your reaction Share

The $135K Question

Klein.jpgThe $135,000 Reason to Support Demboski

Even if you don’t live in Anchorage, you probably have friends or family members or co-workers who do.  Please forward this email and remind them to vote in the crucial election TOMORROW – Tuesday, May 5!

Entering the final hours of the mayoral race, we continue to hear from the political “chattering class” the tired old conversation about whether too much time is being spent talking about “social issues.” Shouldn’t we be focused on the fiscal issues instead?  But the longer I observe politics, the more convinced I am that the “social issues vs. fiscal issues” debate is a red herring distraction that simply wastes our time.

The real issue that unites both social and fiscal concerns in this race is freedom.   To understand this clearly, let’s consider the case of Aaron and Melissa Klein.  The Kleins live in Oregon, where they operated “Sweet Cakes,” a small family-run bake shop.  Unfortunately, the Kleins are in big trouble with the state government.  In fact, a judge just ordered them to pay $135,000. 

What crime did the Kleins commit?  Well, they ran afoul of a state law in Oregon that is identical to the law that Ethan Berkowitz wants to bring to Anchorage – a law that creates special rights for so-called “transgendered” persons and homosexuals.  A law that empowers them to smash anyone who happens to disagree with their views about human sexuality.

In early 2013, the Kleins declined an offer to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.  It conflicted with their Christian beliefs that marriage can only be a union of one man and one woman.  This happened in uber-hip Portland, Oregon, where surely a hundred other bake shops would have been delighted to take the money of the lesbian couple and bake them a cake.  No matter.  The lesbian couple’s feelings were hurt, and they decided this was good enough reason to ruin the lives of Aaron and Melissa Klein.  Lawyers were hired, charges were filed, and then in late April a judge ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 to the lesbian couple – to compensate them for “emotional suffering.”  (Apparently the emotional suffering of the Kleins for being persecuted for their religious beliefs is of no concern to the government).

Bakery_Protest.jpgThe law that the Kleins are accused of violating is exactly like Proposition 5 – the disastrous 2012 proposal that was rejected by 57 percent of Anchorage voters.  Ethan Berkowitz actually campaigned for the passage of Prop. 5, and made a large donation to that campaign.  Berkowitz did this, despite all the evidence that such a measure would bulldoze religious liberties, and also lead to other stupidity, like men being allowed to use women’s restrooms, because, well, the man is “confused” about his true gender.

In the current campaign for Mayor, Berkowitz has not only said he would support a law like Prop. 5, he commented:  “It would have been proposed by me.”  Meanwhile, Amy Demboski has been very clear that, if elected Mayor, she will veto freedom-killing measures like Prop. 5.  The contrast between these two candidates is stark.

Imagine if you were to ask Aaron and Melissa Klein“What’s more important, social issues or fiscal issues?”  I suspect they would answer, “They’re one and the same.”  When you’re facing a $135,000 penalty for simply running your business in accordance with your values, they really are the same.  

There is no freedom to prosper when the government wields this kind of power.

Click HERE and HERE to see how freedom is squashed when laws that Ethan Berkowitz support are enacted.

Freedom.jpegSo freedom is the issue that matters most in tomorrow’s election.  The freedom to prosper, and the freedom to live according to your values, are not contradictory.  They are two sides of the same coin.  You can protect both by casting your ballot for Amy Demboski.

This communication was paid for by Alaska Family Action, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.  I am Jim Minnery, President of Alaska Family Action, Inc., and I approve this message. This NOTICE TO VOTERS is required by Alaska law.  We certify that this communication is not authorized, paid for, or approved by the candidate.  Top three contributors are Lawrence Partusch, David Hultquist, and Alaska Pro Truckers of Anchorage.


1 reaction Share

Ethan - you got some splaining' to do


Editorial: Berkowitz backed “father-son” marriage

By Bernadette Wilson

On Sunday, April 26th, Dr. Jerry Prevo, the pastor at Anchorage Baptist Temple, made the comment that Ethan Berkowitz had once said on his radio show that he ‘would not be opposed to a father marrying his own son.’

Roughly 24 hours later, the fill-in for my radio show on KFQD asked candidate for mayor, Amy Demboski,  to comment on Pastor Prevo’s statement.

Laying in bed with a newborn in my arms, my phone began to ring – family, friends and media outlets… ‘Ethan Berkowitz was co- hosting the show with you, you were there. Is it true…?’

It was a debate I had preferred not to engage in, but a conversation I remember well and a day I will never forget.

It was Monday, Oct. 13, 2014, Columbus Day. The topic was same-sex marriage. As I sparred with my co–host Ethan Berkowitz, I brought up the topic of incest. If the argument against incest was grounded in reproduction, and if reproduction was not a consideration in a same-sex marriage, then could a father marry his son?

Yes, a father should be able to marry his son, Mr. Berkowitz informed me. Surely, I thought, he could not be serious. Mr. Berkowitz went on to explain that ‘love is love’ and if it is through a marriage that a father felt he could best provide for, and exemplify his love for his son, then who are we to judge?

After more of an explanation than I could possibly wrap my thoughts around, I interrupted him and suggested he was crazy. Not appreciating the interruption or the labeling of his judgment, my co-host, who had been a friend and confidant, got up and walked out of the studio. It was a conversation I remember well and a day I will never forget.

To be clear, we were not talking about pedophilia. We were talking about a hypothetical regarding two grown men.

Individuals will draw their own conclusions and assign motivations. Did Mr. Berkowitz mean it? Did he get too far ahead of himself? Did he choose his words poorly? Those are questions Mr. Berkowitz must answer.
I don’t doubt that the audio file from that day’s radio show has been captured. And if and when it is released, you might just realize, Mr. Berkowitz’s comment, ‘I’m not going to dignify that with a response’, probably says and explains it all right there…perhaps even better than any audio…

The comments that Mr. Berkowitz made on Oct. 13, 2014, belong to him – and only he is in a position to explain them. It is not ‘politics of personal destruction’ nor should it be below him to offer clarity to voters regarding any issue, his values or his thought process.

Bernadette Wilson is the host of ‘Bernadette Live’ on 750am&103.7fm KFQD

Add your reaction Share

The Real Ethan

Ethan_B.jpgThe Radical Record of Ethan Berkowitz

(and why it matters in a local election)

Even if you don’t live in Anchorage, you probably have friends or family members or co-workers who do.  Please forward this email and remind them to vote in the crucial election on Tuesday, May 5!

The local (liberal) media never misses a chance to lecture us that the race for Anchorage Mayor is “non-partisan.”  It’s all about fixing potholes, you see, and so divisive cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage are just noisy distractions from the real issues.  But there are several reasons why social and cultural issues really DO matter in this election.  Here are just two:

1)   The Mayor has power:  If you doubt whether an Anchorage Mayor is relevant on social policy, think back to 2009 when the Anchorage Assembly passed Ordinance 64.  This was the freedom-killing measure that would make it a crime for, say, a local Christian florist to refuse to participate in a homosexual wedding. The measure that would also make it a crime for a Catholic adoption attorney to refuse to place a child in a gay or lesbian or transgender led home because the home was without a mother or father. The only reason that measure didn’t become law in 2009 is because Mayor Dan Sullivan vetoed it.  A few years later, 57 percent of voters said “Amen” to Mayor Sullivan’s veto when they rejected Proposition 5.  But without Sullivan’s veto, Prop. 5 would have been a moot point.

2)   Upward mobility:  People who become Mayor of Anchorage often run for, and sometimes win, statewide office – where they can wield even more power on issues that matter to social conservatives.  Mark Begich and Tony Knowles are two obvious examples.  In the case of Ethan Berkowitz, we don’t need to wonder if he’s that ambitious.  He’s already run for statewide office – three times!  He ran for Lieutenant Governor in 2006, Congress in 2008, and Governor in 2010.

Candidate Ethan Berkowitz is using his enormous financial resources from public employee labor unions to craft a politically moderate image.  Don’t be fooled.  Berkowitz served for 10 years in the state legislature, and his voting record in Juneau reveals he could not be further to the left.  Here are just a few highlights:


Let’s give credit where credit is due: long before Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton “evolved” in their positions on gay marriage, Ethan Berkowitz thought it was a great idea for men to “marry” other men.  Way back in 1998, Berkowitz voted NO on SJR 42 – the proposed constitutional amendment to protect the “one man, one woman” definition of marriage in our state.


Do you think that a 13-year-old should be able to get an abortion in Alaska – without a parent’s consent?  Ethan Berkowitz does.  He voted NO on SB 24, the bill that was overwhelmingly passed by the Alaska Legislature to require a parent’s consent before a minor’s abortion. Alaska Family Action led the effort in 2010 to introduce and pass Ballot Measure 2 demonstrating once again that Berkowitz is out of touch with Alaskans.


Remember this one?  In the barbaric “partial birth abortion,” the baby is partially delivered, and then the doctor stabs the baby in the back of the skull, to create a hole large enough so that a suction catheter can be inserted to suction the baby’s brains out.  This procedure was so horrific that Congress voted to ban it, the President signed the ban, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ban.  But in Alaska, Ethan Berkowitz voted NO on the legislation to ban partial birth abortion (HB 65 – 3-20-97).

Berkowitz’ opposition to HB 65 was particularly memorable when he lost his temper during a committee hearing, after a pro-life witness compared the partial-birth abortion procedure with the practices of doctors in Nazi Germany.  Berkowitz attempted to interrupt and harangue the witness (a no-no during committee hearings) and had to be silenced by the committee chair, before the hearing could continue. 


What about a bill to ensure that women considering abortion are fully informed before this elective procedure?  Shouldn’t doctors have to disclose to these women issues like health risks of the abortion procedure, alternatives to abortion, etc. – so that each choice is an informed choice?  The Alaska Legislature passed a bill (SB 30 -- 2004) to make sure that women have this information – and Ethan Berkowitz voted NO.  In case you were wondering if “pro-choice” really means “pro-ignorance,” now you have your answer.


The State House once considered and passed legislation that attempted to stop the scandal of tax dollars being used to pay for abortions (HB 234 – 02/02/1998).  Ethan Berkowitz voted NO.  Do you get the mentality?  When it comes to social issues, progressive Democrats sound a lot like libertarians, always casting each issue as a matter of personal autonomy and freedom.  But when the issue of money comes up, then they revert back to pure socialism.  Everybody has the freedom to make bad choices – and then the government forces you to pay for your neighbor’s bad choices.  Welcome to the worldview of Ethan Berkowitz.


In 2006, Ethan’s last year in the Legislature, the House and Senate took up legislation (SB 20) that would create various criminal offenses for causing the death of an unborn child – outside of the context of abortion.  In other words, if a pregnant woman is assaulted on the street, and an attacker kicks her in the stomach and kills her unborn child… well, there’s going to be a criminal charge connected to the death of the child, separate and apart from the crime of assault against the mother.  The bill contained specific language saying that it did not apply to a woman who voluntarily chooses to kill her child through a legal abortion.

Does that sound like a measure that both “pro-choice” and “pro-life” lawmakers could agree on?  Well, quite a few lawmakers on opposite sides of the abortion issue DID agree – and SB 20 is now the law of the state of Alaska.  It passed the House of Representatives with a 75 percent supermajority vote.  But not with the help of Ethan Berkowitz.  He voted NO.  Remember Planned Parenthood’s infamous slogan, “every child a wanted child”?  With his vote against SB 20, Rep. Berkowitz basically said that even wanted children have no rights under the law.


Don’t be misled by the soothing lie that local elections are just about fixing potholes.  Every election features competing worldviews, from the local School Board to the White House.  The choice on May 5 could not be clearer.  The Alaska Family Action Board has proudly voted to endorse Amy Demboski for Mayor.  Please make sure to get to the polls Tuesday, May 5th.

This communication was paid for by Alaska Family Action, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.  I am Jim Minnery, President of Alaska Family Action, Inc., and I approve this message. This NOTICE TO VOTERS is required by Alaska law.  We certify that this communication is not authorized, paid for, or approved by the candidate.  Top three contributors are Lawrence Partusch, David Hultquist, and Alaska Pro Truckers of Anchorage.

1 reaction Share

"It's Going To Be An Issue"

Yesterday's oral arguments regarding whether the United States Supreme Court will impose same-sex marriage on the nation had pundits on both sides of the issue pontificating on what the outcome might be.  Regardless of the outcome, this issue is no more "settled" than abortion was following the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

The culture is just starting to get it's head wrapped around this matter and truth has a funny way of sticking around.

What many might have missed however is a sub-plot that played out when the question of religious liberty came up. Please take a few minutes to read the article below and try to come to a determination that same-sex marriage won't affect the rights of individuals and organizations who hold to a natural view of marriage. 

You won't be able to.

AttacksReligiousLiberty.jpeg“It is Going to Be an Issue” — Supreme Court Argument on Same-Sex Marriage Puts Religious Liberty in the Crosshairs

From AlbertMohler.com

"It is … it is going to be an issue.” With those words, spoken yesterday before the Supreme Court of the United States, the Solicitor General of the United States announced that religious liberty is directly threatened by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Donald Verrili, representing the Obama Administration as the nation’s highest court considered again the issue of same-sex marriage, was responding to a question from Justice Samuel Alito. His answer confirms with candor the threat we have long seen coming.

Back in 2005, long before the movement to legalize same-sex marriage had gained cultural momentum, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty held a forum on the question of gay marriage and religious freedom. The forum included major legal theorists on both sides of the marriage issue. What united most of the legal experts was the consensus that same-sex marriage would present a clear and present danger to the rights of those who would oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.

Marc D. Stern, then representing the American Jewish Congress, put the matter directly:

“The legalization of same-sex marriage would represent the triumph of an egalitarian-based ethic over a faith-based one, and not just legally. The remaining question is whether champions of tolerance are prepared to tolerate proponents of a different ethical vision. I think the answer will be no.”

That was a prophetic statement, as we can now see. Stern continued:

“Within certain defined areas, opponents of gay rights will be unaffected by an embrace of same-sex marriage. But in others, the impact will be substantial. I am not optimistic that, under current law, much can be done to ameliorate the impact on religious dissenters.”

Keep that in mind as you consider the oral arguments inObergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case that sets the stage for the legalization of same-sex marriage in all fifty states — and sets the stage for what may well be, in the United States, the greatest threat to religious liberty of our lifetime.

The first exchange on religious liberty came as Justice Antonin Scalia asked Mary L. Bonauto, lead counsel arguing for same-sex marriage, if clergy would be required to perform same-sex ceremonies. Bonauto insisted that declaring a constitutional right for gay marriage would not require clergy of any faith to perform same-sex ceremonies.

The second exchange was between Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Solicitor General Verrilli, also arguing for same-sex marriage. The Chief Justice asked: “Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same-sex couples?”

The Solicitor General did not say no. Instead, he said that the federal government, at present, does not have a law banning discrimination in such matters on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As for the states, “that is going to depend on how the States work out the balance between their civil rights laws, whether they decide there’s going to be civil rights enforcement of discrimination based on sexual orientation or not, and how they decide what kinds of accommodations they are going to allow under State law.” He went on to say that “different states could strike different balances.”

Make no mistake. The Solicitor General of the United States just announced that the rights of a religious school to operate on the basis of its own religious faith will survive only as an “accommodation” on a state by state basis, and only until the federal government passes its own legislation, with whatever “accommodation” might be included in that law. Note also that the President he represented in court has called for the very legislation Verrilli said does not exist … for now.

Verrilli’s answer puts the nation’s religious institutions, including Christian colleges, schools, and seminaries, on notice. The Chief Justice asked the unavoidable question when he asked specifically about campus housing. If a school cannot define its housing policies on the basis of its religious beliefs, then it is denied the ability to operate on the basis of those beliefs. The “big three” issues for religious schools are the freedoms to maintain admission, hiring, and student services on the basis of religious conviction. By asking about student housing, the Chief Justice asked one of the most practical questions involved in student services. The same principles would apply to the admission of students and the hiring of faculty. All three are now directly threatened. The Solicitor General admitted that these liberties will be “accommodated” or not depending on how states define their laws. And the laws of the states would lose relevance the moment the federal government adopts its own law.

The third exchange on religious liberty came as Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli about the right of religious institutions to maintain tax-exempt status, citing the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Internal Revenue Service to strip Bob Jones University because of that school’s policy against interracial dating and interracial marriage. That policy of Bob Jones University remains a moral blight to this day, even though the university has since rescinded the policy. Bob Jones University stood virtually alone in this unconscionable policy, but the Court’s decision in that lamentable case also set the stage for Justice Alito’s question — “would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?”

Pay close attention to Solicitor General Verrilli’s response:

“You know, I — I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I — I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.”

Verrilli’s pauses no doubt indicate that he understood the importance of what he was saying — “It’s going to be an issue.”

It will indeed be an issue, and now we have been told so by none other than the Solicitor General of the United States. The loss of tax-exempt status would put countless churches and religious institutions out of business, simply because the burden of property taxes and loss of charitable support would cripple their ability to sustain their mission.

The crippling effects of a loss of tax-exempt status was acknowledged at the Becket Fund event by Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School. “The debate over same-sex marriage,” he explained, “has become for the twenty-first century what the abortion debate was for the twentieth century: a single, defining issue that divides the country in a zero-sum political battle.”

Consider his words:

“Many organizations attract members with their commitment to certain fundamental matters of faith or morals, including a rejection of same-sex marriage or homosexuality. It is rather artificial to tell such groups that they can condemn homosexuality as long as they are willing to hire homosexuals as a part of that mission. It is equally disingenuous to suggest that denial of such things as tax exemption does not constitute a content-based punishment for religious views.”

Those words were spoken back in 2005. The words of Solicitor General Verrilli were spoken yesterday before the Supreme Court of the United States. You can draw a direct line across those years from Professor Turley’s acknowledgment and Mr. Verrilli’s confirmation of the threat — “It’s going to be an issue.”

As the Supreme Court considers the issue of same-sex marriage, and with cultural momentum building for same-sex marriage at warp speed, Marc Stern’s comments also demand our attention. He is undoubtedly right that the victory of same-sex marriage means the victory of an “egalitarian-based ethic over a faith-based one.”

The remaining question, he said then, “whether champions of tolerance are prepared to tolerate proponents of a different ethical vision.” Even then, he warned: “I think the answer will be no.”

We will soon find out just how tolerant those who preached tolerance for same-sex marriage will turn out to be, now that they are ascendant in the culture. Meanwhile, even as we were repeatedly told that warnings about threats to religious liberty were overblown, the truth came out before the Supreme Court yesterday. Take the Solicitor General at his word. “It’s going to be an issue.”

Add your reaction Share

Alaska Family Action Touts National Partnerships

CLink_3CP.jpgProtecting and defending the family is a huge battle in today's culture.  It takes an all-hands-on-deck approach -- consistent, diligent, and effective engagement across 50 states through multiple layers of government.  And for this reason, we are proud to align with several national organizations, including CitizenLink, that are committed to protecting marriage, preserving life, and defending YOUR personal and religious liberties.  

We hope you'll check out CitizenLink's website and subscribe to their email list, so you, too, can be aware of the progress we're making to improve life for families across Alaska.  

Add your reaction Share

ACT NOW to Protect Parental Rights in Alaska !


Left Wing Activists Wage War On Parental Rights

Surely by now, Senator Mike Dunleavy must be thinking of that wry expression, “No good deed goes unpunished.”  We predicted that Senator Dunleavy’s common-sense bill to protect parental rights, SB 89, would provoke opposition.  Well, the opponents have come out in droves.  They’ve launched a campaign of misinformation about SB 89 that reminds me of the mass hysteria that we saw recently in Indiana with regard to that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

I’ll share more about what the opponents are saying, and our responses, below.  But first: it’s time for your voice to be heard.  SB 89 passed out of the Senate Education Committee on Thursday of this last week, and it now goes to the State Affairs Committee for consideration.

ACTION NEEDED: Please contact the members of the Senate State Affairs Committee and urge them to support SB 89, because it protects a parent’s right to direct the education of their child.  (Contact information for the committee members can be found at the end of this email).

Let’s review what SB 89 proposes to do.  Here are the key provisions that have drawn the most attention:

1)   First, SB 89 requires local school boards to adopt policies that recognize a parent’s inherent authority to withdraw their children from tests or assessments that they find objectionable; and to allow parents to withdraw their child from any activity, class or program that instructs on human reproduction or sexual matters, or which inquires into personal or private family affairs of the student that are not a matter of public record.

2)   Second, if a school plans to offer instruction dealing with human reproduction or sexual matters (i.e., sex education courses), then the parent must be provided at least two weeks notice, and the signed consent of the parent is required before the student may participate in such instruction.

3)   Third, SB 89 states that an “abortion services provider” may not offer course materials or teach sex education programs in the public schools.

Sex_Ed_Cartoon.jpgPlanned Parenthood is lobbying furiously against the bill, arguing that SB 89 is designed to “target” them specifically, and further arguing that it will prevent students from receiving sex education.  In reality, the bill’s language speaks for itself: entities that are making money by performing abortions ought not to be given a free, taxpayer-funded venue for promoting their services in front of impressionable young people.  That applies not only to Planned Parenthood, but also to other abortion facilities and their employees.    As Senator Dunleavy put it, “We’re not outlawing abortion service providers; we’re saying, ‘Take it out of the school.’”

For most of us, that’s just common sense.  But Planned Parenthood, which makes more money from doing abortions than any other entity in the world, apparently has a sense of entitlement.  Planned Parenthood thinks they’re entitled to be teaching your child about sex, and peddling their “services” to your child, in the public school that you pay for.  Here’s reality: there are dozens of options that schools have for teaching about human sexuality that don’t involve giving free advertising to America’s No. 1 abortion business.  There is nothing in SB 89 that disallows schools from offering sex education programs – provided they have the permission of parents to do so.

PP_Comic.jpgBut Planned Parenthood isn’t the only entity opposing this bill.  As I predicted in my earlier email on this bill, the public school bureaucracy is also launching salvos against SB 89.  They claim it would just be way too burdensome to obtain the parent’s written consent before students can participate in a sex education class.  This is nonsense.  Schools obtain parental consent for all sorts of things – most notably field trips.  As just one example, click here to see the parental consent form that Alaska’s largest school district requires before students can go on a field trip.

Guess how many times this form is filled out every year and collected by school staff?  Well, the Anchorage School District website says that, “The Transportation Department dispatches approximately 6,000 field and activity trips annually.”  You do the math – how many students on average attend each field trip, and then multiply that by thousands.  The notion that this couldn’t easily be done for the infrequent sex education class is ludicrous.  Let’s translate what the public school bureaucracy is really saying: “We don’t want to lift a finger to help protect the rights of the parents – the same parents who happen to pay our salaries.”  If you’re not infuriated by that attitude, you should be. Click HERE for something else that will rattle your cage. Caution - It's a graphic but eye opening look at what Planned Parenthood is doing in public schools today. 

Take_Action.jpgTAKE ACTION NOW!

My friends, it’s time to saddle up and defend Senate Bill 89.  Senator Dunleavy has shown tremendous leadership in advancing this idea, but now the progressive left has simply come unhinged.  Don’t let them get away with their “Indiana-style tactics” for demonizing a perfectly reasonable, perfectly common sense bill.

Contact the members of the Senate State Affairs Committee and ask them to protect parental rights by supporting SB 89.

Important note: committee members Senator Bill Stoltze and Senator Charlie Huggins are co-sponsoring SB 89. Please thank them for their support, and ask the other committee members to support & cosponsor the bill as well!


Senator Bill Stoltze


[email protected]


Senator John Coghill


[email protected]


Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice-Chair


[email protected]


Senator Lesil McGuire


[email protected]


Senator Bill Wielechowski


[email protected]

1 reaction Share

State Legislative Issues Briefings Announced

Educating and informing the public about legislation important to Alaskans is a key component of Alaska Family Council’s mission.  AFC is proud to present its new State Legislative Issues Briefing series this year at locations across the state.  Our State Legislative Issues Briefings are free and open to the public, though your RSVP is requested as seating is limited.

Wasilla: Thursday, April 16th at 5:30pm (Best Western Lake Lucille Inn) - Register Here!

Delta Junction: Friday, April 17th at 7:00pm (Diamond Willow Inn - Coffee and Dessert) - Register Here!

Juneau: Saturday, April 18th at 10:30am (Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary) - Register Here!

Fairbanks: Saturday, April 18th at 4:30pm (Gambardella's Pasta Bella, appetizers included)Register Here!

Kenai: Monday, April 20th at 5:30pm (Paradiso's Restaurant - Dinner Included) - Register Here!

Eagle River: Tuesday, April 21st at 5:30pm (Home of Senator Fred and Jane Dyson) - Register Here!

Anchorage: Friday, April 24th at 7:30am (Petroleum Club of Anchorage - breakfast included) - Register Here!

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call Zachary Freeman at (907) 317-1343 or email [email protected].  We hope to see you there!

Add your reaction Share

Just Say No to Suicide Bill

assistedsuicide431.jpgLet’s say “NO” to assisted suicide

The Alaska Legislature on Thursday, April 9th, tomorrow, will hold its first hearing ever on a bill that would allow physicians to prescribe lethal drugs for the express purpose of causing the death of their patients.

However, if you search through the legislative schedule for this week, you’d have a hard time even noticing this bill.  That’s because it’s listed by its very soothing official title – “Voluntary Termination of Life.”  Sponsored by Representative Harriet Drummond (D-Anchorage), House Bill 99 proposes to bring Oregon-style assisted suicide to Alaska.

I don’t always agree with the political views of the American Medical Association, but their statement in opposition to doctor-assisted suicide hits the nail on the head:

            “…allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.  Instead of participating in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life.  Patients should not be abandoned once it is determined that cure is impossible.” (AMA Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 2.211, emphasis added).

Supporters of assisted suicide often point to laws in Oregon and Washington as “success stories” that should be emulated.  I suppose that success, like beauty, must be in the eyes of the beholder.  The reality is that the “societal risks” the AMA warns about have been quietly unfolding in Oregon and Washington, just as critics predicted.  The Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), which strongly opposes doctor-assisted suicide, has helped shine the light on some of the many problems with assisted suicide laws.  DREDF senior policy analyst Marilyn Golden wrote an excellent op-ed for CNN, “The Danger of Assisted Suicide Laws,” which you can read here.

Act_Now.jpgACTION ITEM No. 1: If you are interested in providing verbal testimony at this Thursday’s hearing, please email us at [email protected].   Testimony from health care professionals (doctors, nurses, hospice workers, etc.) is especially helpful to us.

ACTION ITEM No. 2:  Please take a moment to call or email the members of the House Health & Social Services Committee.  Respectfully ask them to OPPOSE HB 99 and keep Alaska free of doctor-assisted suicide.



Rep. Paul Seaton, Chairman


[email protected]


Rep. Liz Vazquez, Vice-Chair


[email protected]


Rep. Neal Foster


[email protected]


Rep. Louise Stutes


[email protected]


Rep. David Talerico


[email protected]

Rep. Geran Tarr


[email protected]


Rep. Adam Wool


[email protected]



Add your reaction Share

Vote Today

vote.001.pngTurnout for Municipal Elections is always low.

Be one of the few who actually makes a difference.

Get out and vote for a true conservative today !

Vote for Amy Dembosky for Mayor.

This communication was paid for by Alaska Family Action, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.  I am Jim Minnery, President of Alaska Family Action, Inc., and I approve this message. This NOTICE TO VOTERS is required by Alaska law.  We certify that this communication is not authorized, paid for, or approved by the candidate. Top Contributors are Josh Pepperd, Dave Bronson and Dorota Balaban - Anchorage, Alaska. 

Add your reaction Share