State of AK Attorney Refuses Judge Suddock Option to Recuse Himself


"Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith..."Hebrews 12:1-2

Today, was one of those days I wanted so bad for justice to prevail.  A great many Alaskans engaged and spoke up on this issue but we now must press into this verse in Hebrews that centers you on the reality of life's journey.  Patience with an eye toward a certain and perfect finish.  A little muddied up in the middle but always persevering forward to the cross where all things are made new.

As you might have read earlier, Alaskans had every reason to believe that Judge John Suddock should have recused himself from the latest Planned Parenthood vs. State of Alaska case. His former law firm had represented Planned Parenthood previously and the first judge assigned to the case, Judge Mark Rindner, had taken himself off of the case due to his own conflict as the husband of Suddock's former law partner.  What a mess !

In any event, Judge Suddock did not recuse himself. The hard part to swallow though is that Suddock actually ASKED the Chief Assistant Attorney General, the plaintiff lawyer in this case defending the regulation, if she had any issues with him serving on the case based on the potential conflict.  He basically dished it up on a platter and she refused his offer to recuse himself from the case. 

It was a low moment in the hearing to say the least.

From that point on, it became evident, in my opinion, that Judge Suddock was mostly concerned about the potential "irreparable damage" that might occur from a women being denied a Medicaid funded abortion because of the "possibility" that it might be "medically necessary." It was difficult to see the Chief Assistant AG backtrack on this. 

The question of why this regulation was implemented in the first place never really came up. No mention of theGuttmacher Institute study (scroll down to Tables 2 & 3) showing the VAST MAJORITY of abortions take place for elective/non-medical reasons. Remember, Guttmacher is a pro-abortion research arm of Planned Parenthood.  The study, the most comprehensive we've been able to find, compared the years 1987 and 2004. Guttmacher hasn't done a more recent study but there is no reason to think the results would be much different.

No mention of testimony offered by Dr. Jan Whitefield, one of the most prolific abortionists in Alaska, under oath that he certifies medical necessity whenever a pregnancy would interfere with a woman’s work or education plans, or even if she views her pregnancy as an “affront.”  In other words, an abortion is medically necessary whenever a woman does not want to be pregnant.  Right now, any abortion a Planned Parenthood doctor certifies is medically necessary is just that, and the State must pay.

This does not have to be.  We simply need an impartial judge who hears a vigorous defense of a common sense regulation that stops Medicaid fraud from occurring.  After witnessing today, it's not likely that is happening. 

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.