My Party, My Choice: The Constitution Party Goes Pro-abort
By Paul deParrieThe Covenant News ~ May 02, 2006
It was fitting that it was the day after Patriots’ Day when the betrayal occurred. Traitors’ Day, perhaps? Yet, I should not be so hard on the national leadership of the Constitution Party as they, at least, were truly anti-abortion for a time.
There has been trouble brewing in the national CP for a while. It seems that the Nevada state’s party leaders were simply not on board on the “no exceptions” position of the national regarding child-killing. Of this there is no doubt. The evidence is clear that a single family of conservative activists, the Hansens, had worked long and hard in Nevada to create and grow their independent party. Leaders from elsewhere admired their organizational prowess. Nevada was a very strong state party.
However, when it became known that the leaders of the Nevada party held the view that there was no wrong in aborting babies conceived through rape or incest, shock waves went through all the parties and it was reflected at the national meetings. As it turned out, the Hansens were to toe the line of their Mormon faith which holds that such children are not innocent and, therefore, legitimate targets of execution. Despite the fact that the Nevada party had officially signed on to the “no exceptions” platform of the national, the leaders and some candidates of that party were openly pro-abort. It was the same hypocrisy from which many members of the CPs across the nation fled in the first place.
Some affiliated parties began demanding that either the Nevada party fully comply with the national on this matter, or that the national party disaffiliate the Nevada organization. All this began almost two years ago at the twice-yearly meetings of the national party. Between those who wanted to “give Nevada a chance” to see their errors and comply, and those who simply did not want to confront the issue at all, the festering boil continued on the CP backside for meeting after meeting. Some did not wish to have such a large, well-organized state party disappear from the CP roster for fear of losing much needed strength.
It seemed, though, that the main argument heard was that state parties (like states themselves under the U.S. Constitution) were sovereign entities and should not be coerced by the national (like the national government does the states today). “State (affilliate’s) rights!” was the battle cry.
Even the inestimable Howard Phillips fell for the trap. (He eventually voted to hang on to Nevada despite their pro-abort position.)
What struck me as odd was that this is the very essence of the pro-abortion argument. NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood will all tell you that the sovereignty of the individual trumps the life of the innocent child—the right to liberty outweighs the right to life.
On April 21, 2006, the national CP voted to recognize state’s rights to be of greater import than the right to life itself. They have merely replaced the mantra, “My body, my choice,” with, “My party, my choice!”
To say I am disappointed, is to state the obvious.
I recall meeting Howard Phillips—at least the old Howard Phillips—when I first became involved in the Oregon Constitution Party. One thing he said that I remember well was, “If some day I, or the Constitution Party, should ever abandon the core principles of the Party, don’t wait. Leave and start a new party.”
I haven’t forgotten that, Howard.
I await word of whether the Oregon Constitution Party will secede from the national. If so, I’ll be here. If not, I’m gone.
The babies deserve nothing less. Nothing less than “life”—even if it means surrendering some bit of “liberty” or “pursuit of happiness.”
Wouldn’t you surrender those things for your children?