Dear Editor:

In 1995, the LP News published David Nolan's July article on the Declaration of Independence and my September letter commenting on it. This touched off a correspondence between Dave and myself on abortion and the LP platform. (It can be read on the World Wide Web, Nolan Exchange). This discussion is important for the 1996 LP convention. Abortion is hot news due to the current debate over "partial birth" abortions (which involve a partial delivery of the child up to her head).

In testifying to the 1993 Platform Committee, I spoke about such abortions and also about Ana Rosa Rodriguez, whose right arm was ripped off in an attempted abortion. A PlatCom majority apparently felt that the platform rightly permits such cases.

Also recently in the news is Gianna Jessen, another abortion survivor with life-long injuries. She is now old enough to vote. I asked 1993 PlatCom members why should abortion survivors vote Libertarian? They did not answer. I hope Libertarians on both sides of abortion will encourage the July convention to address the question.

Nolan made it clear that he is on the side of abortion choice but that he would prefer, as would some other Libertarian abortion choicers, that the LP drop its present support for abortion and let individual candidates voice their own positions. Some candidates are pro-life.

Doris Gordon
Libertarians for Life

To: LPUS-Plat mailing list
Reply and Comments on Letter to LP News

Joe Dehn, a member of the 1996 Libertarian Party's Platform Committee, responded via the LPUS-Plat mailing list to Doris Gordon's letter to the LP News. The following is her response to him there:

He quoted,

DORIS GORDON:
>This discussion is important for the 1996 LP convention. Abortion
>is hot news due to the current debate over "partial birth" abortions
>(which involve a partial delivery of the child up to her head).

and replied,

JOE DEHN:
>Exactly how does this "current debate" make the topic of special
>interest for this convention? Do you have specific language in mind
>to address this particular aspect of the abortion question?

DG: I have in mind what I suggested in 1993: drop all support for abortion choice from the platform, wherever it appears.

The LP is in effect on record as fully supporting legalized partial birth abortions: The platform gives unconditional support for abortion choice throughout pregnancy (medically, pregnancy is over only when the child is completely outside the mother's body), and the 1993 Platform Committee was informed specifically about "partial birth" abortions. The Party of Principle should make it clear either that it does indeed support having this a method of killing legal or that it does not. What the party should not do is to sweep the issue under the rug.

Why are partial birth (or, partial infanticide?) abortions of special interest for the LP in 1996? In 1993, this procedure was largely unknown. This year it's common knowledge, because of media attention. Congress recently voted against such abortions, but then President Clinton vetoed the bi-partisan bill.

Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor, made the news when she testified to Congress against partial birth abortion. She suffers from cerebral palsy, which was caused by the attempt to kill her 19 years ago. After 4 surgeries and with continuing therapy, she now can walk without assistance. This year, she is eligible to vote. What does the LP, the Party of Principle, have to say to Gianna about her "sole and absolute owner[ship] of ... her body"? ("Women's Rights and Abortion" plank)

The 1993 Platform Committee was told about Ana Rosa Rodriguez whose right arm was torn off during the attempt to kill her by abortion. But "Women's Rights and Abortion" was amended so as to allow injuring children, so long as the damage is done before they are fully delivered. The words I'm referring to are, "We oppose the fetal protection doctrine under which the state ... would hold a woman legally liable -- because of her diet or personal behavior -- for having a damaged or deformed child."

If the LP fails at the July convention to drop its unconditional support for abortion choice, it owes Gianna and other abortion survivors a principled reason. And, to borrow from the Declaration of Independence, to show "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind," it should give its reason in public, in writing.

Doris Gordon, Delegate from Maryland