I am sitting here looking at a big, colorful campaign postcard that says, "John Binkley - Believes in the Sanctity of Life." A little later on, it says, "I am pro-life and believe in life's sanctity. John."
Sound off on the important issues at
When I read that, I wondered if John was insincere or simply didn't understand what "pro-life" means. The issues of today are abortion and euthanasia. I don't know where John stands on euthanasia, but he has a record on abortion.
Back in 1990, then-Sen. Jack Coghill twice introduced amendments to bills, the effect of which I would have been to severely limit public funding for abortions in Alaska.
The exact wording of the legislation was, "It is the intent of the legislature that funds appropriated to the Department of Heath and Social Services shall not be used to fund abortions of human embryo or fetus, except in instances when the life of the mother is threatened, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest." Then-Sen. John Binkley voted to table one of those bills.
Though he was absent for the final vote on the other, it was Sen. Binkley who had objected to it being adopted by unanimous consent. The amendments did not pass, and John Binkley was among those who killed them.
Now, John Binkley may have seen the light since 1990, but I have no reason to believe that that is true. It is more likely that he has no real understanding of what the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" really mean. If you are looking for a pro-life candidate, I suggest you look elsewhere.
Paul S. Renschen