Aaron Oliver thinks it’s possible to be pro-life and a loyal Democrat. But party leaders want him to resign. / Courtesy of Aaron Oliver
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jan 2, 2022 / 07:30 am (CNA).
His fellow Democrats call him a traitor (and worse) and the leaders of his party have pressured him to resign.
What has Aaron “A.J.” Oliver, the Democratic municipal chairman in his New Jersey hometown, done to deserve such scorn?
He’s pro-life.
Never mind that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and other prominent Democratic leaders have professed tolerance for pro-life Democrats.
Or that Oliver, an Episcopal priest and New Jersey Army National Guard chaplain, says he’s a faithful Democrat soldier in every other respect.
“I’m a loyal Democrat, a lifetime Democrat,” he told CNA. “Many of us think that there’s not an inconsistency with being pro-life and a Democrat. We think the party should be the open tent that it claims to be.”
The flaps of the tent appear to be drawn tight in New Jersey when it comes to abortion, however, Oliver has found, even though Pelosi and other Democratic leaders insist there’s no litmus test on abortion. Pelosi famously cited her own “devout Catholic family” in 2017 as the reason for her openness to Democrats who don’t share her staunch support of abortion rights.
“Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice,” she said. “You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?”
Democratic leaders in the Garden State have taken a different approach with Oliver.
A party ‘betrayal’?
The 41-year-old Morristown resident was elected to a two-year term in June as chairman of the New Jersey suburb’s municipal Democratic committee, an unpaid position. The committee’s chief role is to recruit and support strong Democratic candidates, Oliver said.
Until very recently, party leaders saw Oliver as that kind of candidate, having initially supported his run in 2021 for the Morris County Board of Commissioners, a GOP stronghold for many years.
His ultimately unsuccessful bid ran into trouble after a video surfaced of him at an event sponsored by Democrats for Life of America (DFLA), an organization that opposes abortion and promotes pro-life Democratic candidates. A public interest group called NJ11th for Change swiftly retracted its endorsement less than a week before the Nov. 2 election.
“Given the revelation that Oliver’s position is far removed from what most of us would consider ‘pro-woman’ or ‘feminist,’ we feel strongly that continuing to endorse this candidate would be a betrayal of our members’ values, which are and have always been overwhelmingly pro-choice,” the group’s co-executive directors said at the time.
In December, the Morris County Democratic Committee called on Oliver to resign his municipal post. The county organization said it was its “duty to choose representatives and party leaders who will support, protect and expand equitable and quality access to reproductive rights in New Jersey and help make that a reality for every American.” More recently, the committee Oliver chairs issued a “no confidence” vote against him.
But Oliver is standing firm. He says party leaders were aware of his pro-life views prior to his run for commission and still thought he’d be good candidate, “especially since the county government doesn’t vote on legislation involving abortion,” he added. Yet know they want him out as Morristown chairman.
“I don’t think that’s a sufficient reason to resign, I really don’t,” he said.
“And to be honest with you, many of us are sick and tired of being bullied and marginalized for a matter of conscience like this, for defending a consistent life ethic … and we don’t want to take it anymore.”
Embracing a ‘Whole Life’ approach
Oliver’s story illustrates not only the hardened abortion stance of the Democratic Party but also the diversity of the pro-life movement.
Oliver, who is gay and a staunch Democrat, witnessed that heterogeneity himself when he attended a Democrats for Life rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1 during oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case. Among those advocating for the unborn that day were secularists, atheists, feminists, and members of the LGBTQ community.
“It’s not just religious people that are pro-life,” Oliver said. “I think that the pro-life movement is growing. It’s diverse in a lot of ways, I mean ethnically, politically, as far as age, religion. I was happy to see that.”
Nor is the pro-life movement strictly focused on abortion, he added. Democrats for Life’s own “Whole Life” philosophy embraces a range of issues, he noted.
“We talk about issues like euthanasia, and capital punishment, and protecting women — providing real choice for them when it comes to pregnancy support (and) reducing the maternity mortality rate,” he said. “And our (DFLA) movement is actually led by women, so the false dichotomy, (that) it’s a men versus women thing, I think is kind of a false narrative.”
Extreme NJ bill a ‘turning point’
Faith and service have been running themes in Oliver’s life.
Raised in a Methodist family, he says his brother and several other relatives served in the military. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, he enlisted in the New Jersey Army National Guard in 2003, joining an infantry unit. Meanwhile, his spiritual journey led him to join the Orthodox Church, and after discerning a vocation, he became an Orthodox priest and a U.S. Army chaplain.
The journey wasn’t over. He left the Orthodox Church and was accepted as an Episcopal priest in 2012. A couple of years later he went on active duty with the Army for five years, spending some of that time overseas. He rejoined the National Guard as a chaplain and captain in 2020.
He says his pro-life position evolved over time.
“I certainly haven’t reached this point overnight,” Oliver told CNA. “I’ve always had pro-life inklings … I’ve always wanted to look out for the vulnerable and the marginalized. And I started to see unborn children as being vulnerable and marginalized, and I started asking more questions, like, ‘Why aren’t we standing up for them and supporting them?’”
Those questions ultimately led him to Democrats for Life of America, which states on its website that “every human being is worthy of dignity and respect, from fertilization to natural death.”
But Oliver says the real turning point for him politically was Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy’s effort to pass the New Jersey Reproductive Freedom Act.
Crafted as a hedge against the possible decision in the Dobbs case that would overturn the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, the legislation would codify an unrestricted right to abortion up to the moment of birth, while removing the state’s longstanding conscience protection for medical professionals who object to abortion.
Additionally, the act authorizes non-physicians to perform certain abortions, and requires insurers to cover abortions with no out-of-pocked costs. It also mandates an annual allocation of state taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood.
“Those provisions terrified me, honestly,” Oliver said. “I started talking to DFLA and we started a movement to protest it, which I think was pretty effective.” After enough Democrats were persuaded the legislation was too extreme, the legislation stalled in the state’s legislature last year, though Murphy, a Catholic, is pushing to get it passed in 2022.
Oliver said the extreme nature of the legislation “galvanized” his thinking on the abortion issue.
“At first I was kind of afraid to talk about it, because I don’t want to be accused of being anti-woman or not being sensitive to people who have to make that difficult decision,” he said. “But then I realized that … this is the civil rights issue of our time.”
Oliver says some of his fellow Democrats have privately told them that they share his pro-life views, but they’re too afraid to buck the party. At the same time, Oliver says it disturbs him to hear some abortion rights proponents talk about the issue in a way that “goes beyond pro-choice to pro-abortion” and equates abortion with routine health care.
“I’m even starting to hear people say, ‘Yes, the fetus is a (human) life, but abortion is still OK,’” he said.
Oliver and the DFLA have their work cut out for them staving off the abortion legislation in New Jersey indefinitely. In addition to pressing for the act to be passed, Murphy found a way around the legislature when political appointees sitting on the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners agreed to allow nurses and midwives to perform first-trimester abortions, effective Dec. 6.
Kristen Day, DFLA’s executive director, calls Oliver a role model for pro-life Democrats, in the tradition of former Illinois congressman Dan Lipinski.
“I just have such respect for him, because when they went after him before, right before the election, he took the high road. He never called anybody names, he never got angry. He just laid out his case why he would be a good candidate, and all the things that he has done to support Democrats in New Jersey,” Day said of Oliver.
“So I think what they’re doing to him now is just really terrible. I mean, the names they’re calling him, the emails that they’re sending. It’s just not what the Democratic Party, (which) prides itself on diversity and inclusion, should be doing to someone who really cares about the party and wants to elect Democrats and who cares about feeding the poor, cares about … affordable health care and child care. I mean, he’s fighting for all of that. In addition, he wants to support pregnant moms and the right to parent,” Day said.
“New Jersey’s abortion numbers are an embarrassment,” Day added, referring to data from the Guttmacher Institute that place the state’s abortion rate among the highest in the U.S. “We should be doing more as a party to lower the abortion rate in New Jersey and provide women with real choice. And because he’s doing that, they’re trying to kick him out of the party.”
Oliver, who spent six weeks guarding the U.S. Capitol with his National Guard unit after the civil unrest on Jan. 6, isn’t sure what’s next for him, politically. Asked if he is considering switching to the Republican Party, Oliver said he would prefer to remain a Democrat, though his party isn’t making it easy for him.
In the meantime, he says his faith is helping him weather the adversity he faces now.
“My faith tells me that life begins at conception,” Oliver said. “So my Christian beliefs certainly inform my position on the issue. But they also allow me to hold firm on it, as well.
“They allow me to still advocate for life, even amidst all the criticism, and even hatred,” he said.
[…]
How would this be different from prolife folks being accosted?
Years ago I was praying with members of our church outide a clinic that performed feticides and a man repeatedly threatened us with a large pair of scissors. He would come right up close to us and make stabbing motions. The police said because he didn’t actually stab us there was nothing they could do.
From what you have set forth, the man is guilty of an assault that is against the law, so the police either directly lied to you (likely) or were ignorant of the law (unlikely). In basic legalese, one definition of assault is a seriously threatening action to do unjust physical harm to another, such as in your circumstances. Battery is the actual physical act of unjustly harming another. In common everyday language, the word ‘assault’ is used for physical attacks on people, and so the legal distinction between assault and battery is unknown to many, but not to the police. Perhaps the police deemed that their presence was enough to prevent further incident, but if so, this does not excuse them from wrongly advising you that they could not intervene when anyone is confronted by a legally defined assault against them.
Supplement to my response to mrscracker: in some states, battery is simply included in various kinds of assaults such as ‘simple assault’ and ‘aggravated assault’ without a separate offense known as battery.
Nevertheless, the threat to do bodily harm is indeed an actionable assault in all states if it can be inferred from the manner of the threat that a person or persons so threatened reasonably fear for their bodily safety.
Thank you for sharing that Doc. It happened over 3 decades agi and I remember going to court later as a witness but nothing came of it. I believe civil charges had been filed against the man with the scissors.
It was really disturbing because I had a baby in a stroller when we’d been threatened that way.
Such an upside down world we live in. As I see it the praying man was confronting three people, two mothers ready to murder their children as well as the escort who was their accompanying accomplice. The praying man attempts to stop the murder only to be arrested and threatened to jail, parole and fine. To be objective, the article did not mention if there were other witnesses to prove either way. Since he was released by the judge and declines to comment it is further unclear. Sounds like the judge may have not had enough evidence to prove him guilty since he released him which makes me think that the abortion folks may have lied.
As I understand it, the PP escort repeatedly verbally accosted Houck’s minor son. Also, Houck was never charged by police and the escort never showed at the civil trial. Looks like a non-issue until someone decided to go federal with it. And what a criminal show of force from the FEDS.
You have a lot of incorrect information. Take this as somebody very familiar with the case. Unprovoked attack, nothing to do with his son. Don’t want to say more at the time, except you have bad information.
You have false information. No communication at all about son. Volunteer was just trying to escort women in the building. Also wrong about the trial information. Get better sources. Lots more I could say since I know all the details of the case, but the now 73 year old man doesn’t need to be assaulted again, so please stop spreading false information and victim shaming.
Okay, Bob. Why can’t you say more? Looks like a cop-out. You wouldn’t actually be the “escort” (BL), would you?
In any case, since Mr. Houck has been doing his peaceful protests for years without incident, why should we believe your story that he was not provoked, and that it did not involve his son? According to you, Houck simply lost his cool for the first time and decided to attack a 73-year-old man. Also, what does the age of the “escort” have to do with anything, and how do you know how hold he (or perhaps you) are? Did Mr. Houck know the “escort’s” age, and that’s another reason why you claim he shoved him? Or are you trying to drum up bogus sympathy for such an “escort” because of his age?
Sorry, Bob. If you can’t elaborate on your remarks with supporting evidence or you simply choose not to do so, your assurances of knowing more about the case is just hearsay on your part that nobody should accept based only on your unconvincing “I know more than you, but I won’t say what” about the case.
By the way, was the case thrown out or dismissed in a civil court? If so, why did this occur if your claims are correct?
If you really had information about what happened instead of only denying what has been reported you could inform us. You are essentially claiming it was an unprovoked attack. But what is your source for that?
Even if I took your word for it that “Lots more I could say since I know all the details of the case,” and I don’t, it wouldn’t matter. It could not justify an early-morning armed raid by a couple dozen agents, screaming and pounding at the door.
How is it that a man who was in a small shoving match could get ten years in prison when those who are murdering people and doing drug deals that kill people on the streets of N.Y, Chicago and in California are all being let back out on to the streets? This is insanity. You only get out if you are a danger to society and are left in prison if you try to defend the unborn. It won’t be long before the Warning comes.
It’s not a shoving match when one person shoves another to the ground while the other doesn’t lay a finger on them. It’s an assault, and given where the assault happened and under the circumstances, it is a more serious offense. Mark should have kept his hands to himself.
Again, Bob, your writing suggests that you may indeed be the ghoulish “escort” identified as BL. You write not as a witness, but one directly involved. For instance, the following are a bit peculiar in your comments spread over a couple of posts:
Bob: “the now 73 year old man doesn’t need….”
Who would emphasize a person’s age change if not the person himself? If you were merely a witness, you would only refer to his age at the time of the incident, which was apparently 72.
A witness probably wouldn’t mention the possible future impact of a rhetorical assault on another person, but a person whining about such being possibly visited upon himself would write in this manner…just as you have done.
And a witness probably wouldn’t write that “Mark should have kept his hands to himself,” but a person shoved by Mr. Houck would write in this manner.
Also, what’s with the first name basis?
Since you work/volunteer for your fellow ghouls of Planned Parenthood, I suspect that Mr. Houck has been known and detested by you et al., and so this whole thing smacks of a set-up on your part with the help of the compliant DOJ to try to stop Mr. Houck from saving lives that you enjoy helping others murder.
Lastly, the cry of “victim shaming” also suggests you are upset with being called out as a ghoul who helps women murder their babies. Anyone who helps a woman murder her unborn child brings shame upon themselves regardless of whether or not they are called out for their shameful behavior.
That’s correct. Regardless of the specifics, if you take a 20,000 foot view of the situation you see the clear discrepancy in the way justice is carried out. Even if the defendant is guilty of assault and wasn’t defending his son, he could’ve been picked up without incident by his local Sheriff’s Dept. Instead, he and his family were SWATted. I mean, you’d swear it was Summer 2020 and the Houcks were in the act of assaulting folks, looting, and burning down buildings or something (hypothetically of course) the way the police made contact with them. Regardless of assault vs self defense) then the way he was apprehended wasn’t about him and the level of risk he posed. No, it was a show of force for the rest of us.
Meant: “Regardless of assault vs self defense, the way he was apprehended wasn’t about him and the level of risk he posed.”
… and we should accept your “account of events” at face value? I guess this is another of those anonymous sources named “Bob”. Keep in mind that if you are an eye witness, you will get your day to tell the truth in court. If not, then you are just guessing about the facts third hand like the rest of us.
There are some facts that are undisputable, however. For instance, Abortionist Powell typically kills 20 people a day at that clinic and no one gets arrested. On the other hand, those protesting those murders get arrested. That my friend, is the definition of insanity.
More Garland gestapo nonsense. First off, the FACE act is strictly designed to chill protest rights at kill mills. Second, the response from “multiple agencies” is grossly unneeded and was clearly designed to embarrass and intimidate others. Sure, charge the guy with assault. This is nuts.