Alaska Minister Frightened by Sarah Palin's Candidacy

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:02:07 PM EST
Tags: Sarah Palin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Salon has an article about Alaska Baptist Minister Howard Bess who says he is frightened by Gov. Sarah Palin's injection of her evangelical views into her governing. He says as Mayor she tried to ban his book about gays from the public library, ban abortion at a local hospital in the valley and get creationists on the school board.

On abortion:

In 1996, evangelical churches mounted a vigorous campaign to take over the local hospital's community board and ban abortion from the valley. When they succeeded, Bess and Dr. Susan Lemagie, a Palmer OB-GYN, fought back, filing suit on behalf of a local woman who had been forced to travel to Seattle for an abortion. The case was finally decided by the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled that the hospital must provide valley women with the abortion option.

At one point during the hospital battle, passions ran so hot that local antiabortion activists organized a boisterous picket line outside Dr. Lemagie's office, in an unassuming professional building across from Palmer's Little League field. According to Bess and another community activist, among the protesters trying to disrupt the physician's practice that day was Sarah Palin.

On her attempt to get creationists on the school board:

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Amazing... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Strick on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:11:49 PM EST

And not a word of this surfaced while Palin was running for Governor? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

And there's no mention of any thing like this kind of attempt to interject the "culture wars" in to state level politics in any of Alaska's press. You'd think that sort of thing would stick out like a sore thumb in that libertarian, mind-your-own-business state.

As a matter of fact, the claim is so extraordinary, it might need corroboration.

I don't think that Governors are (none / 0) (#5)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:29:53 PM EST

vetted by the public or the media in quite the same light as the President of the United States is. Governors of states with populations that are the size of Baltimore, MD get a lot more leeway because they presumably represent the more narrow interests of their constituents' culture. The Governors of states are also not generally tested during their state campaigns on foreign policy credentials as they are not vested with the power to mobilize the US military and our nuclear arsenal. It is not all that surprising if no one really worried about her views as they might be applied to a national security crisis - especially in a sparsely populated state like Alaska.


Well... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Strick on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:41:34 PM EST

With all the false accusations about Palin banning books, you know, things like that list that includes books not published until after she left the mayor's office, it's not too much to expect there to be some significant evidence backing up this claim.

It contradicts everything written about her. I don't entertain the Obama-is-a-Muslim or the Obama's-birth-certificate-is-forged rumors without evidence, why should this be differen?


well she did (none / 0) (#28)
by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:15:44 PM EST

She did suggest banning books according to reports. She wanted a gay childrens book removed from the library before she became mayor (at some city council thing i think). And then on three seperate occassions discussed banning with the librarian, who said she wouldnt allow it.

It seems you wouldnt need to have three conversations about such a simple issue. A local reporter says the librarian told him at the time that three books were at issue. He could only remember one title and it also dealt with gay issues.

Her church at the time was crusading against the title (pastor Im gay) and a local bookstore was getting angry phonecalls.


That's highly disputed (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Strick on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:29:50 PM EST

From factcheck.org

One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla's librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication. The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn't support her. She was re-hired the next day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books.

It's true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla's librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla's local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "

Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as "rhetorical," noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., "Who do you think you are?"), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library's shelves.


Nice dodge (none / 0) (#35)
by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:37:00 PM EST

You completely ignored her suggestion to the city council that a gay childrens book be removed from the shelves.

She did also raise the issue with the librarian multiple times and a local reporter provided additional details not found in your factcheck, including his description of one of the titles at issue. Also a gay book.

Also not found in the fact check is that Palins church was very much against the second title.

I think that as more information has come forward the factcheck should be updated.


'Tisn't my factcheck (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Strick on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:54:16 PM EST

But Anneberg's. You'll have to speak to them on what you think they left out. Regardless, there's no evidence Palin tried to get any books banned clear documentation no books have ever been banned from Wasilla's library.

So I take it you agree with Karl Rove, that fact checking organizations can't be trusted. At least, not when they disagree with you? :D


: factcheck has long been criticized (none / 0) (#47)
by jerry on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:52:46 PM EST

Criticism of factcheck is nothing new, and of course, calling yourself "factcheck" and being organized at a University or some mogul really means nothing about a particular claim.

: well (none / 0) (#49)
by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:47:00 AM EST

More information has come forward. If they dont update it, it has no value.

A local reporter said? what does that mean? (none / 0) (#45)
by hairspray on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:29:56 PM EST

well (none / 0) (#52)
by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:55:19 PM EST

A reporter interviewed someone. Do I need to send you a pictogram?


: If it would prove your point I would say (none / 0) (#53)
by hairspray on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:45:23 PM EST

yes, but as i understand the pictogram would not do that.. ' language picture representing word: a graphic symbol or picture representing a word or idea in some writing systems, as opposed to a symbol such as a letter of the alphabet representing an individual sound .'
Doesn't sound like validation to me.

BTW (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Strick on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:49:51 PM EST

Down here in Texas, you could bet your life this kind of thing would have come out, particularly if a rogue Republican was running an anti-corruption campaign against the good ol' boys who run the Republican Party.

From what I read, Alaskan politics are just as rough and tumble.


: If we could rely on Texans to tell (none / 0) (#48)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:11:59 AM EST

us the truth about a politician, we would never have suffered through the George W. Bush presidency.

Palin was vetted in 2006 by Alaska Dems (none / 0) (#16)
by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:50:51 PM EST

http://tinyurl.com/6jpkcchttp://tinyurl.com/6jpkcc


Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#4)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:25:30 PM EST

the pastor is American Baptist which would be considered a mainline christian denomination. We've all been put out with the evangelicals for quite a while now. It's why I kept saying that Obama has been a huge mistake pandering to these people.

According to Wiki, there are two (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:38:00 PM EST

denominations starting with "American Baptist." One include Dr. Martin Luther King as minister. The other is completely different.

Also, if I were a minister seeking contributions for my church and potential new members, or perhaps if I just wanted my 15 minutes of fame, perhaps I would make a ruckus about Sarah Palin. Plus, this particular minister has a book to sell.


: It's kind (none / 0) (#11)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:43:04 PM EST

of interesting how all that came to be. At one time there were only Baptists. Then the civil war came and you had "southern baptists" who broke with the american baptists. I think the other baptists were the black churches in the south who weren't allowed into the sbc and got disconnected from the american baptists in the rest of the country.

: Oc- he wrote the book going on 20 years ago (none / 0) (#20)
by scribe on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:59:50 PM EST

and he's 80 or so himself.
I think by this time, he's pretty much outgrown that whole need for fame and fortune thing.
Actually, he strikes me as the kind of concerned, thoughtful, genuine character one would like for a pastor.

not all baptists (none / 0) (#29)
by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:17:08 PM EST

are fundamentalist extremists.


Although baptists are generally (none / 0) (#30)
by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:18:42 PM EST

fundamentalists, in the sense they believe the Bible was directly inspired by God.


Or even fundamentalist at all (none / 0) (#34)
by Strick on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:33:37 PM EST

One of the earliest leaders of "Liberal" theology, intended as a counterweight to rising fundamentalism, was a Baptist minister.

And Bill Clinton is a Baptist.


: True (none / 0) (#42)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:08:45 PM EST

though I think most fundamentalist baptists are probably southern baptists. Not that other denominations don't have fundamentalists though.

Yeah (none / 0) (#43)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:10:17 PM EST

but he's not from the conservative wing of the party either.


: Oh geez (none / 0) (#44)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:10:59 PM EST

Too much religion mixing with politics. I should have said conservative wing of the church. Ugh.

Why go all the way to Seattle (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:38:30 PM EST

for an abortion? There are many hospitals and half a dozen Planned Parenthood clinics in Alaska. It's a good state on reproductive rights, getting an A- on NARAL's state-by-state report card.

Looks good from here in Wisconsin, which gets a D-and where in my town with a third of the state population, and almost all hospital being church-run, women have to go to the PP clinics.

I'm all for making hospitals abide by the law, but -- is there more to explain this need to go thousands of miles and leave Alaska entirely? Maybe something in the case file, if there are any lawyers here? :-)

Since you asked (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Steve M on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:54:39 PM EST

I looked up the case on Lexis, it is Valley Hospital Association v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice, 948 P.2d 963 (Alaska 1997). It doesn't really answer your question, though. While it notes that the hospital in question was the only one in the Mat-Su Valley, you'd certainly think there would be a hospital in Anchorage (not very far away) that could perform abortions.

The decision does, indeed, make Alaska out to be a very choice-friendly state; it says Alaska had a statute making abortion legal even prior to Roe, and the state has an explicit right to privacy in its constitution. But the case does explain quite clearly the genesis of the underlying dispute:

VHA is a nonprofit corporation organized under Alaska law. It owns and operates a thirty-six-bed hospital in Palmer. The hospital is licensed by the State of Alaska (State); it is the only hospital in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Valley. The hospital facility currently in use was rebuilt and expanded in the early 1980s, using $ 10.7 million in State funds and five acres of land donated by the City of Palmer. VHA is not affiliated with or operated by any religious organization. The corporation "is organized to serve public interests."
VHA's Board of Directors is divided into two boards, the Association Board and the Operating Board. The Association Board raises money and acquires property for the hospital and elects the Operating Board. The Operating Board has all the other powers and functions of the Board of Directors, including establishing hospital policy.
VHA is a membership organization. Any adult may become a VHA member upon paying a five dollar application fee. Members who are residents of the Mat-Su Borough, denominated "general members," annually elect the Association Board.
Abortion has been permitted in Alaska since 1970, when the state legislature passed the current abortion law. VHA permitted lawful abortion procedures at its facility from 1970 until 1992. 2 In 1992 abortion opponents organized a campaign to enlarge the membership of VHA. In April 1992 a larger-than-usual membership elected the Association Board, which then elected the Operating Board. In September 1992 the Operating Board enacted a new policy on abortion. The policy prohibits abortions at the hospital unless (1) there is documentation by one or more physicians that the fetus has a condition that is incompatible with life; (2) the mother's life is threatened; or (3) the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. All VHA Operating Board members supported this new policy.
The Mat-Su Coalition for Choice, Dr. Susan Lemagie, and ten unnamed women (Coalition) filed suit against VHA and its executive director, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief...

Thanks. Yes, my question still not (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:30:08 PM EST

answered -- and yes, Anchorage is quite nearby and has hospitals and a PP clinic. All closer than similar facilities for many women in my state, Sensenbrenner's state (see his bill banning even grandparents from getting girls and women across state borders, such as those near the borders of Minnesota and Michigan here).

It would make sense to go to Seattle if there was a serious condition causing concern and need for more than a basic abortion -- but then, this brief says such situations were covered in Wasilla. So I'm still stumped . . . and thus suspecting there is more to this story.

Of course, no matter how much more to it, I'm glad that these hospitals got their comeuppance. And from what I've found now, there have been hospitals in every state -- even these non-religious ones -- balking the law.


Dumb question, but could they really enforce (none / 0) (#37)
by Teresa on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:39:13 PM EST

that? If my state banned abortion and I wanted to take my niece to Atlanta, they could stop me?


If they catch you. If you help a kid (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 07:09:55 PM EST

and some fundy finds out. And it's the law now. And it doesn't need a state banning abortion. It's about, for example, much of my state and many states away from the big cities in their own states but closer to big cities in other states.

Anyone who wants to considerably improve this country by helping to fund the candidate running against Jim "I Hate Borders Between States and Between Countries" Senselessbrenner!


: So the bill passed? Wow. I need to do some (none / 0) (#41)
by Teresa on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 07:19:21 PM EST

reading. That's really scary.

Nice job. Any mention of (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:15:15 PM EST

Sarah Palin in the pleadings or appellate opinion?


Perhaps the pregnant female (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:46:18 PM EST

didn't care to run the gauntlet in Alaska, with attendant publicity and/or threat of harm to her?


I had never looked at that report card before. (none / 0) (#14)
by Teresa on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:47:18 PM EST

TN gets a D+. Who would have thought Alaska would be better than Wisconsin?


Alaska is 'Good'... (none / 0) (#21)
by Brillo on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:02:25 PM EST

Because rape is incredibly commonplace in the state, significantly higher than anywhere else in the country. They were one of the very first states in the country to legalize abortions (before Roe), and it was driven largely by this issue.

Read a bit more about it from an Alaskan blogger. If you're allergic to Palin criticism, skip the rest of the article, it's a first hand account of Palin's tenure as mayor.


: Uhh, did you go to the NARAL site (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 07:10:54 PM EST

and see the measures assessed? It's not about the number of rapes per capita. Yikes.

Interesting about her father (none / 0) (#2)
by jerry on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:13:49 PM EST

Have her parents been interviewed anywhere? Might be interesting to hear a reporter ask her father how he regards her creationist views and acts....

what acts? (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by Andy08 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:14:48 PM EST

Banning books, trying to get creationist on board (none / 0) (#7)
by jerry on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:36:27 PM EST

Point of order (none / 0) (#12)
by Strick on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:45:14 PM EST

Factcheck.org: Sliming Palin

I believe both those claims have been debunked.


Factcheck vs. Rev. Bess, subject of TL's post (none / 0) (#46)
by jerry on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:31:53 PM EST

The subject of TL's post is a minister who says:
a) She tried to ban his book
b) She tried to get creationists on the school board.


: Hearsay (none / 0) (#51)
by Andy08 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:44:10 PM EST

is not an "act" jerry.
There were no books banned ever nor requested by her to be banned in any of her official capacities. She did not favor nor ever insinuated changing the curriculum to teach creationism.

Those are lies (none / 0) (#50)
by Andy08 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST

that have been debunked already.


Truth be told (none / 0) (#6)
by Steve M on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:33:38 PM EST

the reason the evangelicals have gained so much political power over the last couple decades is not because a couple high-profile people got into high positions, but because of grassroots efforts to take over school boards and city councils all over the country.

We may disagree with a lot of their policy goals, and we may think the separation of church and state gets violated in some cases, but either way the end result is that we end up fighting a lot of uphill battles all over the country over issues like displaying the Ten Commandments.

I don't really hold it against them, even though I obviously disagree with their goals. They simply want a different sort of collective action from their government than I do, and hey, that's their right. If we're losing a lot of these little battles around the country, one reason is that in a lot of cases they simply want it more than we do.

Well, but (none / 0) (#17)
by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:53:48 PM EST

most religions do not call upon their "parishioners" to go out and try to control the government and everyone else.


: Sure (none / 0) (#23)
by Steve M on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:06:50 PM EST

and as long as they're content with government failing to deliver the stuff they want, that's fine!
Let's put ourselves in their shoes. Let's say you belong to a fundamentalist church, and you're very concerned about sinful stuff being taught in the public schools, or sinful books being offered in the public library. This is something that has parishioners very concerned, and everyone feels like it's a symbol of how society is going to the Devil. Well gosh, you have a lot of people in that church, why doesn't it make sense to try and elect some people to the school board or the city council to try and change society's sinful ways? People tend to act in their self-interest.

Exactly. Catholics did just this, and now (none / 0) (#31)
by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:25:40 PM EST

control the Supreme Court. And a Catholic almost won the White House again last time, and a Catholic is running for VP this time. . . .

And sez a priest I know, the Catholics still in the church could be pretty scary in their beliefs, too, to some of you.:-)


Come on, now (none / 0) (#24)
by Strick on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:09:39 PM EST

This is a Republican snark, right? This kind of outlandish attack doesn't do much but make Palin more sympathetic and rally her supporters.

For that matter, no one questioned Michelle going on the campaign trail with Obama. Don't women have a right to a career?

Jeez...

: I deleted that comment and the user (none / 0) (#26)
by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:14:11 PM EST

brand new user, no idea who it is, but totally out of line.

ya (none / 0) (#25)
by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:12:27 PM EST

She did say she wanted creationism taught in the gubernatorial debates. She said she wanted equal time for both which is classic creationist rhetoric. Several days later she backed off and said she wouldnt press for that. She's cunning about backing off when chanllenged (S.C already ruled against it).

The bad news here is that if this is Salon quote is accurate it maans she's a YEC. Previously she wouldnt answer questions about her creationism beliefs but I figured she was a young earth creationist.

That's 6k year old earth, the works. If she was active in pushing for YECs on the school board its easy to imagine her pushing for it as a president (if mccain died or whatever). A few more conservatives on the court and one or two executive orders and she wouldnt even need congress.