Republican Club Adopts Anti-Abortion Position

The Harvard-Radcliffe Republican Club officially affirmed the anti-abortion position of the Republican National Party after a heated debate last night.

The club voted to adopt the stance by a slim 23-21-2 margin, after a controversial dispute over whether it should base its decision on principles or on practical membership considerations.

Club President Karen E. Boyle '94 said the group in years past had officially taken a neutral stance on the issue.

"I've always known it was a pro-life Republican club, but we never had an outward stance on the issue," Boyle said.

Proponents of the motion said the issue is a matter of principle which must supersede concerns about driving away members.

"It's important that the Republican Club be as unambiguous and committed to supporting the Republican position as the [Democratic] club on campus is to supporting their position," said Christopher B. Brown '94, who proposed the motion. "I think we'll have a stronger and more active club."

But those voting against the resolution expressed fear that the decision may have adverse consequences on the club's membership levels and overall diversity.

"I think it's very unfortunate that a small minority of the club was able to come here tonight and create what I see as a schism in the club. I hope that we're able to convince people that we still are the big tent party," said Luke A. Sarsfield '95, the club's treasurer.

Club member Randall L. Fine '96 said the club should strive for "inclusion, not exclusion."

"If you tell everyone what a Republican should do and think and act, when you're finished you'll have about 10 people left," Fine said.

Brown said the abortion issue demands more action from the club than other items on the Republican agenda.

"What do we mean when we say that abortion is a bad thing?" Brown said. "It's a bad thing in the way that murder is a bad thing, that rape is a bad thing, that slavery is a bad thing."

Tung Q. Le '96, a club member, urged other members to place moral values above efforts to maintain a more diverse club.

"I am speaking for the good of a child," Le said. "What good is it to win an 'election [without] the things we stand for?"

Amanda P. Williams '96, one of the few women present at the meeting, spoke against the limiting nature of the decision.

"We should delight in our differences, as they exist, that make us a stronger and broader party," Williams said.

Boyle said she was optimistic that the decision will not deter membership.

"If someone calls themself a Republican and is truly devoted to upholding those views and dedicating themselves to Republican and conservative ideals on campus, they won't be deterred from joining the club as a new member or continuing to participate in the Republican Club," Boyle said.

But former club president and prochoice member Emil G. Michael '94 spoke of the aliensting forces of such a decision. "If you want me to be welcome in this party, you'll vote against this resolution," he told members before the vote.

"We've worked to build the future of the Republican club. We're not a static club. We've gone to the future, and now this element is trying to take us back to the past," Michael said.

Last night's meeting was the club's first since February 9, at which Brown introduced a different anti-abortion proposal.

That original proposal went beyond the wording of the national party platform and thus would have required a two-thirds majority vote. But a quorum was not present to vote on Brown's motion.

To prevent interest groups from packing the vote in anticipation of the anti-abortion proposal, the club's executive officers limited participation to members who had paid their dues by February 9

"We've worked to build the future of the Republican club. We're not a static club. We've gone to the future, and now this element is trying to take us back to the past," Michael said.

Last night's meeting was the club's first since February 9, at which Brown introduced a different anti-abortion proposal.

That original proposal went beyond the wording of the national party platform and thus would have required a two-thirds majority vote. But a quorum was not present to vote on Brown's motion.

To prevent interest groups from packing the vote in anticipation of the anti-abortion proposal, the club's executive officers limited participation to members who had paid their dues by February 9